 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Surge / Ground / Lightning
There are 215 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 20 to 40.
|
Author: ransleyDate: 19:17 01-05-08
|
|
On May 1, 3:30=A0pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:18=A0pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
> > damages from from surges and lightning offer non such =A0claim or
> > warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
> > step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
> > times, anything you do helps a bit.
>
> =A0 Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
> destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
> through it. =A0Gross assumptions are also behind that warranty. =A0Did you=
> read the fine print and learn from so many others who never got that
> warranty honored?
>
> =A0 For example, some plujg-in protectors state that a protector from
> any other manufacturer in the building means their warranty is void.
> Another says that if you don't submit the claim on their forms, the
> claim may be rejected. Another says reinbursement is based on
> depreciation meaning the computer has zero value in a few years.
> Another says that every electrical conductor that touches that
> appliance must connect through their protector. =A0Did they forget to
> mention that a table top is considered an electrical conductor? =A0How
> many fine print exemptions make a warranty void? =A0Fine print is chock
> full of exemptions. =A0Warranty says nothing about protection.
>
> Steve Uhrig on 17 Jun 2003 in the newsgroup =A0 comp.home.automation
> entitled "UPS for computer and TV"
>
> > I read the terms of their warranty, which I had saved
> > together with the purchase receipt, and contacted
> > them to submit a warranty claim. I was nice and
> > polite and had everything documented including
> > photos of their product installed next to the fax.
> > They laughed in my face. Almost could not have
> > been more insulting.
> > I wrote to the executive management of the company,
> > copied customer service, sent both return receipt to
> > prove they received them, and never got the courtesy
> > of a reply.
>
> =A0 =A0Did that protector do protection? =A0Well, how many dishwashers hav=
e
> been surge damaged during the same surges? =A0How many dimmer switches?
> Where are these surges that the Tripplite protected from? =A0Only way
> you know that Tripplite provided protection is when everything else -
> every smoke detector, clock radio, dimmer switch, washing machine, etc
> was destroyed. =A0You have no idea what that Tripplite did. =A0 In fact,
> Page 42 Figure 8 - the Tripplite may even make create damage to other
> items in that room.
Actualy, Double U, bottom slasch, TOM , I had about a $30,000 strike,
Tripp was warranting it, and I let my insurance Co go after it. It was
bad, even flourescents 3 floors down lit from PLASMA energy. Tripp
was there,You are a negative
|
|
|
|
Author: TantalustDate: 21:54 01-05-08
|
|
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote
>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
>ones too.
Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a
salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
On May 1, 4:08=A0pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> On May 1, 12:21 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > =A0He says appliance/ electronics manufacturers put surge
> > protection inside the appliance and that is peachy keen
> > and appropriate. =A0 =A0 Yet he can't explain how it is that an
> > MOV inside the electronics actually protects, while an
> > MOV located in a plug-in is useless.
>
> =A0 If trader read what was posted rather than entertain his
> assumptions, then trader would understand appliances contain internal
> protection. =A0When trader misread, then trader reclessly invented MOVs
> to provide internal protection. =A0What w_tom posted is not found in
> trader's wild speculation.
No, I didn't invent MOV's use in appliances, electronics and
similar. They are widely used for exactly that purpose.
>
> =A0 With a grasp of technology, then trader would have known industry
> standard numbers that defined internal electronics protection even 35
> years ago. =A0Trader does not know these numbers. =A0Trader then assumed
> that protection must be provided by MOVs. =A0Trader - learn technology
> BEFORE knowing everything. =A0You have no idea of protection inside all
> appliances. =A0By reading reclessly and by using wild speculation and
> ignorance, trader assumes protection must be provided by MOVs.
>
> =A0 Protection inside appliances is integrated within appliance
> design. =A0 Internal appliance protection that may be overwhelmed if a
> 'whole house' protector is not installed and properly earthed.
> Nothing in that paragraph discusses MOVs. =A0MOVs inside appliances is
> another trader 'wild speculation' due to knowledge without first
> learning the technology.
Here, from Appliance Magazine and Appliance Design websites:
http://www.appliancedesign.com/CDA/Articles/Electronics/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_=
10000000000000271505
"New thermally enhanced MOVs help protect a wide variety of low-power
systems against damage caused by over-current, over-temperature and
over-voltage faults, including lightning strikes, electrostatic
discharge (ESD) surges, loss of neutral, incorrect input voltage and
power induction.
These devices help provide protection in a wide range of AC line
applications, including AC mains LED lighting systems, PLC network
adapters, cell-phone chargers, AC/DC power supplies (up to 30 VA as
input power for 230 VAC input voltage), modem power supplies, AC panel
protection modules, AC power meters, and home appliances. "
http://www.appliancemagazine.com/print.php?article=3D1778&zone=3D1&first=3D1=
"Protecting increasingly sophisticated and complex control boards from
misconnection, power surges, or short circuit damage is of particular
concern to the equipment manufacturer. Although appliance
transformers, their enclosures, and connections are capable of
withstanding higher voltage transients, the use of sensitive solid-
state devices on the board necessitates improved overcurrent,
overtemperature, and overvoltage control.
Coordinating overcurrent and overvoltage protection can also help
designers comply with safety agency requirements, minimize component
count, and improve equipment reliability. A metal oxide varistor (MOV)
overvoltage protection device used in a coordinated circuit-protection
strategy with a line-voltage-rated PPTC overcurrent device helps
manufacturers meet IEC 6100-4-5, the global standard for voltage and
current test conditions for equipment connected to ac mains."
There, I've provided credible references that MOVs are used for
protection inside electronics and appliances. Now I'd like to see
your reference that says they are not used. As usual, I don't expect
it will be forthcoming.
>
> =A0 =A0We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors short=
> (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that
> protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. =A0Simple stuff
> that so confused trader. =A0trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read what
> was posted. =A0 trader again demonstrates insufficient technical
> kowledge justifies his mockery and insult. =A0 Mythical MOV inside
> appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to see;
> not what is posted.
>
> =A0 MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. =A0Had trader read what=
> was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent
> fictional MOVs inside appliances.
Mythical? LOL Anyone with a lick of any technical knowledge or
familiar with repair of typical consumer electronics knows MOVs are
widely used as the component of choice, because they are what best fit
the application. The truth is, for you to admit that they are
commonly used inside electronics/appliances creates an insurmountable
problem for you. And that is to explain how they could possibly be
used there for surge protection when they have to operate under the
same conditions as a plug-in suppressor would, ie without a direct
nearby earth ground. It's impossible to explain, so you are reduced
now to the silly position that MOVs are just not used inside the
electronics/appliance at all.
|
|
|
|
Author: bud--Date: 12:54 02-05-08
|
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>
Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in a guide from
the IEEE at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
Simpler information is in a guide from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
> | For the SquareD 'best' service panel suppressor - SDSB1175C
> | - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional
> | protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
> | - The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is
> | used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device."
>
> And do you understand the scientific basis why this is so? I doubt it.
According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
most frequently damaged by lightning is
computers with a modem connection
TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
connections).
All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.
This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That
limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems
downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct
induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.
A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to
provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive
electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.
>
> | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
> | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
> | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
> | equipment, televisions, and computers."
> |
> | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
>
> Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look?
The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.
But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power
wires.
A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.
There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only
suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor
and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance
ground block.
> Sadly,
> when marketing gets in control, they tend to hide the imporant engineering
> and scientific details. It even happens with companies like Square-D.
There is a major difference between the units justifying the different
warrantee coverage. Not that that has any particular relevance to
anything either.
>
> Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.
Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.
What is relevant with respect to w_ is that CH makes plug-in
suppressors. SquareD does not but suggests their use and limits the
claimed protection of power-service-only suppressors.
>
> | Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in
> | suppressors are NOT effective. It is w_ against the universe.
>
> The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
> of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
> figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
> level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
> understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
> simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does
not
> cover all situations or all levels of protection.
I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges
and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references
provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you
seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.
You have read little on surges and have said you base your beliefs on
your experience. Experience shows astrology works.
You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
the experiment".
You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection
Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at
technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you
would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific
explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you
probably have not read.
But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There
apparently is no expert but you.
You have never provided a source that agrees with you on disputed issues.
--
bud--
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil HowardDate: 15:37 02-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
| most frequently damaged by lightning is
| computers with a modem connection
| TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
| connections).
| All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.
And this is new information how?
| This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That
| limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems
| downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct
| induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.
Of course. And this is new info?
| A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to
| provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive
| electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.
I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the
building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential
and using a single point of earthing. You can get substantial voltage
difference between different points of earthing even when no lightning
happens to strike anywhere near at all. A ground charge builds up
under a storm, with the opposite polarity of the lower layer of the
cloud base. Now as the storm moves along, what do you think happens
to that ground charge? It moves along, too. But, it actually lags
behind the storm a bit, varying depending on ground conditions, speed
of storm movement, etc. This is one reason why you can often see a
lightning strike jump from the backside of a storm and go laterally
for even as far as several miles, and then hit ground. I have seen
such lightning strikes (a 5 mile one) and seen the damage from ground
currents (melted a wire between two electrodes placed about 1/4 mile
apart along a storm track direction).
|> | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
|> | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
|> | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
|> | equipment, televisions, and computers."
|> |
|> | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
|>
|> Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look?
|
| The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.
|
| But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power
| wires.
|
| A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
| signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
| entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
| suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.
Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one.
I would just ground everything on a board with a big sheet of copper as
grounded backing.
| There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only
| suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor
| and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance
| ground block.
It can be limited to some degree by the grounding block by having an arc
crossover inside. If the voltage exceeds the arc breakdown, you then have
a much lower impedance for center conductor surges to get to ground.
|> Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.
|
| Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.
If you want to see options beyond what SQD has, then do look at CH.
I have downloaded the SQD and CH catalogs, so I can look (but I will
for myself, not for you).
|> The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
|> of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
|> figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
|> level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
|> understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
|> simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that
does not
|> cover all situations or all levels of protection.
|
| I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges
| and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references
| provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you
| seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.
Given your long diatribes, and your fixation on how you respond to others
in an accusatory manner, a lot of your posts go unread even by me.
Maybe what you could do is start a blog. bud-vs-surges.blogspot.com maybe?
Then you can have a collection of links all together in one place where its
easy to refer to them all at once. Or just make a web page.
| You have read little on surges and have said you base your beliefs on
| your experience. Experience shows astrology works.
I've read enough. I've also talked with experts in the field who hold
jobs as college professors in EE departments.
| You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and
"flubbed
| the experiment".
I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
the explanations.
| You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection
| Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at
| technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you
| would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific
| explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you
| probably have not read.
The guide I read that you pointed me to simply did not cover the whole topic.
It left out lots of things. Maybe what it covered was all technically correct.
But it was not a useful guide for the purpose of determing what solution is
needed for all situations.
And look carefully at the name "IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee".
This is about DEVICES. Proper surge protection involves MORE than just
devices. If you are in the business of designing a DEVICE, then sure, go
with their advice. If you need to select a DEVICE to fit into an overall
plan of surge protection, then sure, use their information about devices.
But when the issue has a broader scope than just devices, you may need to
recognize that you won't get all your information from one place.
| But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There
| apparently is no expert but you.
I'm not claiming to be an expert. But when people talk about things with
even less knowledge than I have, and especially when what they say contradicts
actual observations, then I know _they_ cannot be an expert (or else there is
some misinformation and the situations are not really a match).
For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
frequency energy issues entirely. It's really a matter of degree. But
there are low cost solutions that can still justify addressing these less
frequent events. For example, a simple small inductor on the power wires
just immediately after the point where the neutral is bonded to ground
and the hot conductors can be clamped to ground under high voltages (MOVs
and/or arc gaps) can force more of the high frequency energy to divert to
ground instead of continuing on to the vulnerable devices.
Right now, all of my computers are wired on a single power outlet and there
is no long term alternate metallic path. Broadband is wireless to another
room where a sacrificial wireless router is attached to the cable modem.
When I add DSL, that will go on another wireless router and a 2nd wireless
bridge will be added to the computer room LAN, on the same power strips,
to access it.
Unfortunately, I'm getting close to the circuit limit. I need another
power circuit. That can create issues. So my current plan is to add a
240 volt circuit. That will be fed through a separate protector, probably
a CH one, next to the panel, and fed to the computer room to a single NEMA
14-20 outlet. I'm looking for a plug-in suppressor to supplement at that
location. I may have to make one from CH or SQD components, since this is
still a 240 volt point. Once that exists, then I can split the circuit to
separate 120 volt strips at short distances.
| You have never provided a source that agrees with you on disputed issues.
Nor do I need to. This is not an issue about trying to get people to agree
with me. It's about knowing a broad enough scope of science to be able to
determine a solution in a _wide_ range of possibilities, and to know when a
given situation really does _not_ match one that a known solution applies to.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil HowardDate: 15:40 02-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
|
| <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
|
|>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
|>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
|>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
|>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
|>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
|>ones too.
|
| Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a
| salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing about
entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their rants
are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the first
screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off the
posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
On May 2, 3:40=A0pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:
> |
> | <trad...@optonline.net> wrote
> |
> |>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
> |>last week. =A0 I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
> |>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
> |>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
> |>it. =A0 =A0Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-=
in
> |>ones too.
> |
> | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime a=
s a
> | salesman for all of those companies too? =A0 Busy guy!
>
> Both do not appear to be wrong to me. =A0They appear more to be arguing ab=
out
> entirely different issues. =A0
I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
protection and can be part of an effective solution.
Go back and read where w_ posted his list of "real" surge
manufacturers who offer whole house and commercial suppressors, while
disparaging companies who make plug-ins as frauds. Funny thing
happened though. I showed him datsheets and product specs that showed
that every company on his list of "real" surge protection companies
except one, also make plug-ins, discuss their effective use, etc.
If you believe w- is right on this, then maybe you can help him out
by:
1 - Providing a reference that backs up his assertion that plug-in
protectors offer no protection at all
2 - Explain the inescapable contradiction in w_'s position. He has
posted that electronics/appliances, etc have built-in surge protection
that is effective. Yet, those appliances use MOV's and are working
under the same restrictions as a plug-in would, ie they have no direct
earth ground nearby. So, how exactly is it that one can work, while
the other is useless? BTW, w_ faced with this, chose to simply deny
that MOV's are used in electronics/appliances, which just discredits
him more. A few post back I provided references, as if any are
needed, that MOVs are in fact used in electronics/appliances. Plus,
while MOV's are widely used in electronics/appliances, it isn't even
an issue as to the particular component because w_ claims there can be
no protection period, without a direct, nearby earth ground.
>But I can't be entirely sure because their rants
> are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the firs=
t
> screenful is all quoted text. =A0And my googlegroups filter is killing off=
the
> posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
>
> --
> |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating fr=
om =A0|
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by m=
ore readers |
> | =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 you will need to find a different place to post on Usene=
t. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.n=
et) |
|
|
|
|
Author: TantalustDate: 19:15 02-05-08
|
|
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fvfqmk125dl@news4.newsguy.com...
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
> |
> | <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
> |
> |>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
> |>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
> |>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
> |>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
> |>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
> |>ones too.
> |
> | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime
> as a
> | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
>
> Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing
> about
> entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their
> rants
> are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the
> first
> screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off
> the
> posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express?
--
“There’s nothing on it worthwhile, we’re not going to watch it in this
household, and I don’t want it in your intellectual diet.”.
-attributed to Philo T. Farnsworth, by his children
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil HowardDate: 01:00 03-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:fvfqmk125dl@news4.newsguy.com...
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
|> |
|> |>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
|> |>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
|> |>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
|> |>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
|> |>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
|> |>ones too.
|> |
|> | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime
|> as a
|> | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
|>
|> Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing
|> about
|> entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their
|> rants
|> are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the
|> first
|> screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off
|> the
|> posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
|
| Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express?
Not that I know of. But my reader is configured to filter out Googlegroups
due to Google's lack of action to deal with the massive spam floods they let
reach Usenet. Not only is there many times as much spam from Googlegroups
as legitimate posts in the groups I read, but in many, the level of normal
posts has fallen, suggesting that this issue is causing some to abandon Usenet
because of this.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 01:39 03-05-08
|
|
On May 1, 7:17 pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I had about a $30,000 strike, Tripp was warranting it, and I let
> my insurance Co go after it. It was bad, even flourescents 3
> floors down lit from PLASMA energy. Tripp was there,You are
> a negative
You had a surge protector and still suffered damage? That was
effective protection? Why does your telco (connected to overhead
wires all over town) suffer far more massive surges without damage?
Why no damage using a protector that costs maybe twenty times less
money? Why does the telco instead by a protector without that big
buck warranty?
We properly earth a 'whole house' protector so that lightning causes
no damage. So that a surge remains completely unknown to the
homeowner. So that the protector even remains functional.
Warranty means effective protection? Where was that protection?
Did Tripplite pay for all $30,000 of damage? Of course not.
Tripplite even provides no numeric specs that claim protection.
You had a surge protector, suffered damage, and then call that
damage acceptable? We upgrade earthing and install a 'whole house'
protector so that direct lightning strikes result in no damage. So
that the surge is not even known. Effective protectors don't hype a
mythical quarter million dollar warranty. Effective protectors divert
energy into earth where it does no harm - and at less cost. And no
big buck warranty.
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 01:53 03-05-08
|
|
On May 2, 4:24 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
> do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
> subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
> in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
> actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
> both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
> as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
> protection and can be part of an effective solution.
trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
posted. Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
surge that typically does not do damage. How would you know? Well,
w_tom said it repeatedly - and trader ignored it. trader routinely
ignored what he did not understand or did not want to understand.
Typically destructive surges seek earth ground. trader, did you
grasp that point? If permitted inside a building, then that surge may
seek earth ground destructively via household appliances - overwhelm
protection inside appliances. trader - did you grasp that? Surge
protectors do not stop, block, or absorb that surge energy. A
protector simply connects surge energy to all other wires. trader -
that fact comes from any MOV datasheet. You can read a datasheet -
right?
What happens when one of those wires is connected short (ie 'less
than 10 feet') to earth ground? No destructive surge energy inside a
building. AND no Page 42 Figure 8 - surge earthed destructively via
an adjacent appliance. trader did not bother to read what the IEEE
says when a plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too earth
ground - Page 42 Figure 8? Oh.
Sorry, trader. Nobody is posting sound bytes. It required you to
grasp the technology. It required trader to also know that protection
inside all appliances is not provided by MOVs. It also required you
to know what w_tom posted and what you never did grasp. Page 42
Figure 8 happens when a properly earthed 'whole house' protector did
not earth the typically destructive type of surge. Another paragraph
repeatedly post, but ignored by trader.
trader =96 did you ever learn of the many types of surges? Or did you
just know that all surges are same? That also explains why trader
again misrepresents what was posted.
I suggest trader read what was posted rather than invent what he
wanted to hear. trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
sufficient expertise.
Effective protectors do as the NIST state - "simply divert [the
surge] to ground, where it can do no harm." However, no earth ground
means no effective protection. Sales promoters will never admit
that. Profits would be at risk.
Since this is not explained in terms of 'black and white', then
trader sees what he wants to see but was never posted:
> Providing a reference that backs up his assertion that
> plug-in protectors offer no protection at all
|
|
|
|
Author: bud--Date: 04:16 03-05-08
|
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>
> | According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
> | most frequently damaged by lightning is
> | computers with a modem connection
> | TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
> | connections).
> | All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.
>
> And this is new information how?
Irrelevant comment.
>
> | This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That
> | limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems
> | downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct
> | induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.
>
> Of course. And this is new info?
Irrelevant comment.
>
> | A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to
> | provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive
> | electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.
>
> I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the
> building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential
> and using a single point of earthing.
If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what I already
said below:
"A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
suppressor above)."
But of course why would you read what someone else wrote.
>
> |> | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
> |> | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
> |> | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
> |> | equipment, televisions, and computers."
> |> |
> |> | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
> |>
> |> Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look?
> |
> | The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.
> |
> | But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power
> | wires.
> |
> | A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
> | signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
> | entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
> | suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.
>
> Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one.
If you would have read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what
the 1st SquareD suppressor is. In fact right above your reply is "(or
the combined suppressor above)".
If you read what w_ wrote, trader wouldn’t have to explain what w_ said.
>
> | There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only
> | suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor
> | and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance
> | ground block.
>
> It can be limited to some degree by the grounding block by having an arc
> crossover inside. If the voltage exceeds the arc breakdown, you then have
> a much lower impedance for center conductor surges to get to ground.
What is the breakdown voltage? What is the immunity level of a TV tuner?
Gas discharge tubes, among other devices, are used because they clamp at
a low voltage.
>
> |> Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.
> |
> | Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.
>
> If you want to see options beyond what SQD has, then do look at CH.
> I have downloaded the SQD and CH catalogs, so I can look (but I will
> for myself, not for you).
If you would read what has been written you would not make dumb
comments. My original response was to w_. My point was one of w_'s
"responsible manufacturers" (CH) makes plug–in suppressors. "I don’t
really care" what else CH has. You brought it up. I am not, and was not,
interested.
>
> |> The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
> |> of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
> |> figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
> |> level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
> |> understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
> |> simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide
that does not
> |> cover all situations or all levels of protection.
> |
> | I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges
> | and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references
> | provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you
> | seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.
>
> Given your long diatribes, and your fixation on how you respond to others
> in an accusatory manner, a lot of your posts go unread even by me.
Apparently not enough of my posts go unread by you.
I have tried to respond to your posts in other threads on a technical level.
In fact your post in this thread started out hostile.
>
> | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and
"flubbed
> | the experiment".
>
> I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
> the explanations.
Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
for which you have no supporting cite.
>
> | You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection
> | Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at
> | technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you
> | would find "scientific explanations". You might also find
"scientific
> | explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you
> | probably have not read.
>
> The guide I read that you pointed me to simply did not cover the whole topic.
> It left out lots of things. Maybe what it covered was all technically correct.
> But it was not a useful guide for the purpose of determing what solution is
> needed for all situations.
Wow - what a shortcoming. It isn't a 1000 page book.
>
> And look carefully at the name "IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee".
> This is about DEVICES. Proper surge protection involves MORE than just
> devices. If you are in the business of designing a DEVICE, then sure, go
> with their advice. If you need to select a DEVICE to fit into an overall
> plan of surge protection, then sure, use their information about devices.
> But when the issue has a broader scope than just devices, you may need to
> recognize that you won't get all your information from one place.
If you had read what I have written it is obvious I have gotten
information from many places.
And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.
That assumes you actually read the guide. Unlikely, since you said it
has no "scientific explanations". But what could you learn from mere
experts.
>
> | But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There
> | apparently is no expert but you.
>
> I'm not claiming to be an expert. But when people talk about things with
> even less knowledge than I have, and especially when what they say contradicts
> actual observations, then I know _they_ cannot be an expert (or else there is
> some misinformation and the situations are not really a match).
Translation - Phil is smarter than the experts.
>
> For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
> less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
> of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
> within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
> but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
> frequency energy issues entirely.
Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
papers on surges and suppression. In one of them he wrote:
"From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
classical transmission line behavior."
Residential branch circuits aren't 200m.
Your response: "Then he flubbed the experiment." In another case you
have said Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
derived.
One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don’t get transmission line
effects at 100kHz.
You still have never provided a cite that supports your opinion.
Summarizing:
Phil doesn't read much of what you write (or cited sources).
Phil is smarter than electrical engineers who are experts in the field.
--
bud--
|
|
|
|
|
|
w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:
>... trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
>part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
>knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
>citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
>sufficient expertise.
w_tom reminds me of Yoda :-)
>... no earth ground means no effective protection.
Bullshit. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.
Nick
|
|
|
|
Author: bud--Date: 05:33 03-05-08
|
|
w_tom wrote:
> On May 2, 4:24 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>> I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
>> do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
>> subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
>> in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
>> actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
>> both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
>> as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
>> protection and can be part of an effective solution.
>
> trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
> posted.
"No earth ground means no effective protection."
> Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
> surge that typically does not do damage.
Gee - thats kinda like "plug-in surge protectors offer absolutely no
benefit."
But UL listed plug-in suppressors are required to have MOVs from H-G,
N-G, H–N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surges.
> trader did not bother to read what the IEEE
> says when a plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too earth
> ground [sic] - Page 42 Figure 8?
It is, of course, w_'s favorite lie, not what the IEEE guide says. The
guide says "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2
is required."
>
> I suggest trader read what was posted rather than invent what he
> wanted to hear.
But half the time w_ invents what he wants to hear.
> trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted
But w_’s favorite technique is misrepresenting what people post.
> trader just does not have sufficient electrical
> knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
> citations [sic].
w_ just does not have sufficient electrical knowledge to read simple
sources:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors (you don't have to read, just look at the pretty
pictures)?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why do all but one of w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
>
> Effective protectors do as the NIST state [sic]
What does the NIST state?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."
> However, no earth ground
> means no effective protection.
w_ said "nobody is posting sound bytes" - but there it is.
Poor w_ can't understand the explanation in the IEEE guide - plug-in
suppressor work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires (signal
and power) to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing. The
guide says earthing occurs elsewhere. (Guide starting pdf page 40.)
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Why can’t you find sources w_? I am beginning to think you are full of crap!
--
bud--
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil HowardDate: 05:44 03-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>
|> | According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
|> | most frequently damaged by lightning is
|> | computers with a modem connection
|> | TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
|> | connections).
|> | All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.
|>
|> And this is new information how?
|
| Irrelevant comment.
Translation: bud doesn't have the answer
|> | This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That
|> | limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems
|> | downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct
|> | induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.
|>
|> Of course. And this is new info?
|
| Irrelevant comment.
Translation: bud doesn't have the answer
|> | A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to
|> | provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive
|> | electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.
|>
|> I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the
|> building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential
|> and using a single point of earthing.
|
| If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what I already
| said below:
| "A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
| signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
| entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
| suppressor above)."
|
| But of course why would you read what someone else wrote.
Maybe because they write it in a hard to read way, or write it addressed
to someone else, or any of many reasons I can make up.
Why don't you make a web page with a complete compilation of all your
positions and suggestions on surge protection, all in one place, made
easy to read.
|> |> | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
|> |> | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
|> |> | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
|> |> | equipment, televisions, and computers."
|> |> |
|> |> | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
|> |>
|> |> Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look?
|> |
|> | The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.
|> |
|> | But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power
|> | wires.
|> |
|> | A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
|> | signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
|> | entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
|> | suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.
|>
|> Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one.
|
| If you would have read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what
| the 1st SquareD suppressor is. In fact right above your reply is "(or
| the combined suppressor above)".
|
| If you read what w_ wrote, trader wouldn?t have to explain what w_ said.
I read very little of what w_ writes.
|> | There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only
|> | suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor
|> | and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance
|> | ground block.
|>
|> It can be limited to some degree by the grounding block by having an arc
|> crossover inside. If the voltage exceeds the arc breakdown, you then have
|> a much lower impedance for center conductor surges to get to ground.
|
| What is the breakdown voltage? What is the immunity level of a TV tuner?
| Gas discharge tubes, among other devices, are used because they clamp at
| a low voltage.
It's a matter of choosing the right device that won't hinder the desired
signal, but still provides the desired level of protection.
This is one reason I'd like to find a pair of devices, one a modulator,
one a demodulator, that can put the entire spectrum of cable TV on a
fiber optic "cable".
|> |> Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.
|> |
|> | Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.
|>
|> If you want to see options beyond what SQD has, then do look at CH.
|> I have downloaded the SQD and CH catalogs, so I can look (but I will
|> for myself, not for you).
|
| If you would read what has been written you would not make dumb
| comments. My original response was to w_. My point was one of w_'s
| "responsible manufacturers" (CH) makes plug?in suppressors. "I don?t
| really care" what else CH has. You brought it up. I am not, and was not,
| interested.
OK.
|> |> The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
|> |> of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
|> |> figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve
the
|> |> level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
|> |> understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
|> |> simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide
that does not
|> |> cover all situations or all levels of protection.
|> |
|> | I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges
|> | and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references
|> | provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you
|> | seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.
|>
|> Given your long diatribes, and your fixation on how you respond to others
|> in an accusatory manner, a lot of your posts go unread even by me.
|
| Apparently not enough of my posts go unread by you.
A lot just get glossed over.
| I have tried to respond to your posts in other threads on a technical level.
| In fact your post in this thread started out hostile.
I don't even see the threads anymore. I just see poorly written posts.
|> | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and
"flubbed
|> | the experiment".
|>
|> I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
|> the explanations.
|
| Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
| reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
| of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
| for which you have no supporting cite.
You are likely to never see any citation that attests to what I believe.
|> | You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection
|> | Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at
|> | technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you
|> | would find "scientific explanations". You might also find
"scientific
|> | explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you
|> | probably have not read.
|>
|> The guide I read that you pointed me to simply did not cover the whole topic.
|> It left out lots of things. Maybe what it covered was all technically correct.
|> But it was not a useful guide for the purpose of determing what solution is
|> needed for all situations.
|
| Wow - what a shortcoming. It isn't a 1000 page book.
Maybe it should have been.
|> And look carefully at the name "IEEE Surge Protection Devices
Committee".
|> This is about DEVICES. Proper surge protection involves MORE than just
|> devices. If you are in the business of designing a DEVICE, then sure, go
|> with their advice. If you need to select a DEVICE to fit into an overall
|> plan of surge protection, then sure, use their information about devices.
|> But when the issue has a broader scope than just devices, you may need to
|> recognize that you won't get all your information from one place.
|
| If you had read what I have written it is obvious I have gotten
| information from many places.
And mixed it up quite well.
| And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
| by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
| apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
| with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.
I've _met_ electrical engineers that are idiots. I've met people in a
lot of other fields that are idiots.
I don't know if the authors of what you have read are idiots. Maybe they
are just not writing as broadly as you think they are.
| That assumes you actually read the guide. Unlikely, since you said it
| has no "scientific explanations". But what could you learn from mere
| experts.
I read it long ago when you linked it somewhere. I forget which place it
was.
|> | But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There
|> | apparently is no expert but you.
|>
|> I'm not claiming to be an expert. But when people talk about things with
|> even less knowledge than I have, and especially when what they say contradicts
|> actual observations, then I know _they_ cannot be an expert (or else there is
|> some misinformation and the situations are not really a match).
|
| Translation - Phil is smarter than the experts.
I'm not claiming to be an expert. Yet you think I am?
|> For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
|> less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
|> of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
|> within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
|> but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
|> frequency energy issues entirely.
|
| Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
| papers on surges and suppression. In one of them he wrote:
| "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
| often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
| systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
| concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
| the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
| the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
| classical transmission line behavior."
| Residential branch circuits aren't 200m.
|
| Your response: "Then he flubbed the experiment." In another case you
| have said Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
I addressed this one elsewhere. You seem to have misunderstood him.
He did not say that wiring systems do not exhibit transmission line
characteristics. Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases. What he
says in what you quoted is correct. The way you have used it is not.
| You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
| times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
| derived.
So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?
I didn't see where you quoted anything by IEEE or its experts that specify
actual rise times of any kind of surge, induced or otherwise.
| One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
| rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
| with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don?t get transmission line
| effects at 100kHz.
I agree that you don't get transmission line effects under 100 kHz for 200m
wires ... of any significance to worry about for surge matters.
OTOH, you have not shown how even if an 8 microsecond rise time is significant
as a representative case, that it can't get shorter than that in severe cases.
or even a higher rise voltage (which hasn't even been specified at all here).
| You still have never provided a cite that supports your opinion.
You haven't, either, in many cases. You've given cites that support something
else in some cases. It's clear you don't _understand_ the science involved.
I'm sure Martzloff does. It's obvious that you don't.
| Summarizing:
| Phil doesn't read much of what you write (or cited sources).
| Phil is smarter than electrical engineers who are experts in the field.
That's YOUR opinion. Now, are you going to offer a cite to support THAT?
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil HowardDate: 06:40 03-05-08
|
|
In alt.engineering.electrical nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
| w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:
|
|>... trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
|>part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
|>knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
|>citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
|>sufficient expertise.
|
| w_tom reminds me of Yoda :-)
|
|>... no earth ground means no effective protection.
|
| Bullshit. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.
The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
are not overlapping in what they talk about.
One can be fairly safe by having all the communications come in over fiber,
and get power by a motor driving a heavy duty fiberglass axle driving a
generator. Even then, there is still the risk of a direct lightning strike.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
|
|
|
|
Author: TantalustDate: 08:23 03-05-08
|
|
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fvgri141nb@news1.newsguy.com...
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:fvfqmk125dl@news4.newsguy.com...
> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
> |> |
> |> | <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
> |> |
> |> |>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
> |> |>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
> |> |>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
> |> |>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts
at
> |> |>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell
> plug-in
> |> |>ones too.
> |> |
> |> | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working
> overtime
> |> as a
> |> | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
> |>
> |> Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing
> |> about
> |> entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their
> |> rants
> |> are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the
> |> first
> |> screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing
> off
> |> the
> |> posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
> |
> | Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express?
>
> Not that I know of. But my reader is configured to filter out
> Googlegroups
> due to Google's lack of action to deal with the massive spam floods they
> let
> reach Usenet. Not only is there many times as much spam from Googlegroups
> as legitimate posts in the groups I read, but in many, the level of normal
> posts has fallen, suggesting that this issue is causing some to abandon
> Usenet
> because of this.
Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael A. TerrellDate: 20:24 03-05-08
|
|
w_tom wrote:
>
> On May 2, 4:24 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
> > do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
> > subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
> > in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
> > actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
> > both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
> > as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
> > protection and can be part of an effective solution.
>
> trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
> posted. Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
> surge that typically does not do damage. How would you know? Well,
> w_tom said it repeatedly - and trader ignored it. trader routinely
> ignored what he did not understand or did not want to understand.
>
> Typically destructive surges seek earth ground.
Bullshit. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
Take a look in the Google archives and see if you can find even one
post agreeing with tom, and his crackpot theories. He doesn't
understand the concept that a piece of wire is more than a lump of
metal, that it has inductance, resistance, and capacitance between it
and other conductors. The only thing tom is qualified to write about is
aluminum foil hats.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 23:03 03-05-08
|
|
On May 3, 6:04 am, nicksans...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> Bullshit. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.
Yes, high impedance can supplement protection when high impedance is
part of a system that also includes the only essential component in
any surge protection system: a low impedance (short, no sharp bends,
no splices, etc) connection to single point earth ground. High
impedance does not provide protection; can only supplement effective
protection. Effective protection is a low impedance connection to
single point earth ground.
Why is the 'whole house' protector so effective? Page 42 Figure 8
demonstrates what happens when a protector is too far from earth
ground and too close to the appliance.. Effective protector includes
separation (higher impedance) from the protected appliance AND a short
(low impedance) connection to earth ground. That low impedance
connection is essential. High impedance can only supplement the
protection and is not effective when that low impedance earth
connection does not exist.
Will a high impedance stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
not? Of course not. Obviously not. And yet some just know
otherwise. Will that silly little one inch part inside a plug-in
protector stop what three miles of sky could not? Of course not.
Without that short (low impedance) and essential connection to
earth, only then can a high impedance connection do something useful.
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 23:29 03-05-08
|
|
On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating t=
he
> same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly=
> are not overlapping in what they talk about.
Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
protects from surges that rarely damage appliances. As demonstrated
repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.
So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.
If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?
If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.
Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
installed.
Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
will do no harm".
Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
damage =96 that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.
Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don=92t seek earth
ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
does not cause damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
