Re: [WISPA] Soapbox follow-on
Weather proofing is not just rain and snow ( weather ) but natural condensation
that happens with the natural rising sun. The Dew point.
Metals and sufaces become natural condensation pionts and as it collects it
will also evaporate and that will work its way into connectors over time.
Sometimes sooner, sometimes later. Having a protective barrier prevents that
from happening.
There is a specific way to weather wrap as well. You can't just courtesy, snot,
and wrap well you can but it wont last. you need to be specific in the way the
wrap is applied. Each layer is different. Just like a Roofer lays down
shingles. Some people will even use a clear coat spray or scothch guard finish
as one more layer of protection, from water and the baking sun light.
I have never had to use a coating spray but I know field techs that have and do.
My two cents,
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:57 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Soapbox follow-on
Thanks for the kind words, Tom and Marlon. I knew there was a reason I liked
this List! {:-)
Tom, you've hit on a really good point, that system (installation)
specifications can be highly "personalized", which is the central issue of
the current courtesy wrap debate. In my experience, properly applied mastic
and outer tape wraps yield many years of trouble-free connector service
life, with or without the c. wrap. (? Would that be "crap" from another
perspective?) {:-) And, by the way, a properly applied courtesy wrap is
stretched tight and overlapped so that it is, in fact, another moisture
barrier.
That said, I haven't noticed that this wrap, or its lack, affects
weatherproofing performance at all. What the wrap DOES affect is the ease
with which a connector can be taken apart for service. Not only is the stuff
"fluid" and really gummy-especially at summer temperatures-but it must be
remembered that it is inherently an INSULATOR. Any bits which remain on
connector threads during re-assembly can impede fully circumferential
shielding, and it ain't that easy to get all of the silly goop cleared off
fine threads. And anything that keeps my sorry old butt hanging up on a
tower longer than "necessary" ain't a plus either . So, it's really more a
matter of personal preference than absolute right or wrong; I merely prefer
specifying a wrap. Make sense?
As to your next topic, you are definitely preaching to the choir! Your point
that it's easy to make hasty and unfounded judgments is well taken-we've all
been there at some point-but this seems to me to occur far less often,
especially in smaller systems, than your first example. Many years ago I had
a sign made for my office (mostly for the benefit of my staff) entitled "The
Two "S" Rule"
I've designed and presented training programs for many years
Edward J. Hatfield III, President
E.J. Hatfield & Company
5142 Edgemoor Drive
Norcross, GA 30071-4342 USA
1-770-209-9236 - Office
1-770-209-9238 - Fax
1-770-560-0736 - Sprint
1-678-457-8411 - Cingular
154*273*18 - NexTel
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Warning: Soapbox ahead ...
Ed,
Good post.
"Without the courtesy wrap, mastic will flow into every possible space--like
connector threads--and become a real nuisance when a connection has to be
taken apart."
What is the harm of the Mastic flowing into every space like threads? Is it
really that big a nuisance? We haven't had that much trouble pulling off the
Mastic on our broadband connection, and the fact that the Mastic fills the
thread means a water path no longer exist, sorta like Plumbers using that
white thread tape. Would you agree, that if someone doesn't mind the
nuisance, not using the courtesy wrap, would be one level better
waterproofing? I'm NOT saying Courtesy Wrap is wrong, just that it may be an
installer's preference for convenience. Are you finding it to be more of a
nuisance, on different size cabling? For example Telcos tend to use much
larger Coax, and as a result have MUCH thicker rolls of waterproofing and
Mastic, which may be harder to cut through, and therefore more relevant to
have the courtesy WRAP?
"I'm constantly amazed how many folks cannot seem to afford to "do things
right the first time" but seemingly can afford to do those same things over
another 2, 3 or more times."
I'll add that most often when things are not done adequately it is not a
decision of "Affording". Its an issue of "enforcement". The person
installing the gear is rarely the person responsible for the cost of the
repair after the fact, if one is needed. There fore peo
RE: [WISPA] Soapbox follow-on
Thanks for the kind words, Tom and Marlon. I knew there was a reason I liked
this List! {:-)
Tom, you've hit on a really good point, that system (installation)
specifications can be highly "personalized", which is the central issue of
the current courtesy wrap debate. In my experience, properly applied mastic
and outer tape wraps yield many years of trouble-free connector service
life, with or without the c. wrap. (? Would that be "crap" from another
perspective?) {:-) And, by the way, a properly applied courtesy wrap is
stretched tight and overlapped so that it is, in fact, another moisture
barrier.
That said, I haven't noticed that this wrap, or its lack, affects
weatherproofing performance at all. What the wrap DOES affect is the ease
with which a connector can be taken apart for service. Not only is the stuff
"fluid" and really gummy-especially at summer temperatures-but it must be
remembered that it is inherently an INSULATOR. Any bits which remain on
connector threads during re-assembly can impede fully circumferential
shielding, and it ain't that easy to get all of the silly goop cleared off
fine threads. And anything that keeps my sorry old butt hanging up on a
tower longer than "necessary" ain't a plus either . So, it's really more a
matter of personal preference than absolute right or wrong; I merely prefer
specifying a wrap. Make sense?
As to your next topic, you are definitely preaching to the choir! Your point
that it's easy to make hasty and unfounded judgments is well taken-we've all
been there at some point-but this seems to me to occur far less often,
especially in smaller systems, than your first example. Many years ago I had
a sign made for my office (mostly for the benefit of my staff) entitled "The
Two "S" Rule"
I've designed and presented training programs for many years
Edward J. Hatfield III, President
E.J. Hatfield & Company
5142 Edgemoor Drive
Norcross, GA 30071-4342 USA
1-770-209-9236 - Office
1-770-209-9238 - Fax
1-770-560-0736 - Sprint
1-678-457-8411 - Cingular
154*273*18 - NexTel
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Warning: Soapbox ahead ...
Ed,
Good post.
"Without the courtesy wrap, mastic will flow into every possible space--like
connector threads--and become a real nuisance when a connection has to be
taken apart."
What is the harm of the Mastic flowing into every space like threads? Is it
really that big a nuisance? We haven't had that much trouble pulling off the
Mastic on our broadband connection, and the fact that the Mastic fills the
thread means a water path no longer exist, sorta like Plumbers using that
white thread tape. Would you agree, that if someone doesn't mind the
nuisance, not using the courtesy wrap, would be one level better
waterproofing? I'm NOT saying Courtesy Wrap is wrong, just that it may be an
installer's preference for convenience. Are you finding it to be more of a
nuisance, on different size cabling? For example Telcos tend to use much
larger Coax, and as a result have MUCH thicker rolls of waterproofing and
Mastic, which may be harder to cut through, and therefore more relevant to
have the courtesy WRAP?
"I'm constantly amazed how many folks cannot seem to afford to "do things
right the first time" but seemingly can afford to do those same things over
another 2, 3 or more times."
I'll add that most often when things are not done adequately it is not a
decision of "Affording". Its an issue of "enforcement". The person
installing the gear is rarely the person responsible for the cost of the
repair after the fact, if one is needed. There fore people tend to be lazy,
and do the minimum to get the job done. I see it all the time. Installer
thinking, "Oops, I left my Mastic in the VAN, so I'll use more Super 88
instead, or throw some plumbers putty in there, nobody will ever know the
difference, at least for a year or so when a repair is needed, after I'm
long gone and paid." The problem with enforcement is that the only way to
tell if its done right is to undo the waterproofing (which is counter
productive) or wait, not even a photo can help, conclusively. Or when an
installer runs out of something, (because they didn't think ahead to stock
their van) does it justify a next day return visit to redo it with the
correct stuff? Or the day there is an emergency, the first available tech
gets sent to investigate, regardless if they are the one with the best
skills. I guess what I'm saying is... So many people inspect other's work
and pass judgment on it, without the information that is relevant on why it
may have been done that way. I can give an example, where I brought someone
to tour one of our cell sites, (forgetting it was one in repair) and the
first thing he said was, "we never cut corners and leave out reboot devices
and high quality long duration UPS'",
