 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Surge / Ground / Lightning
There are 215 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 40 to 60.
|
Author: w_tomDate: 23:31 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.
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony HwangDate: 23:38 03-05-08
|
|
w_tom wrote:
> 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 the
>>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 – 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’t 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.
Hmmm,
I experienced a direct lightning strike on a 7 story building. In the
basement there was a large(I mean LARGE) scale data center which I was
in charge of.
The strike clobbered all the data stored in mass storage sub system
requiring 3 days' total system restore. I think when surge is BIG,
nothing can be protected from it.
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil HowardDate: 01:38 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| I experienced a direct lightning strike on a 7 story building. In the
| basement there was a large(I mean LARGE) scale data center which I was
| in charge of.
| The strike clobbered all the data stored in mass storage sub system
| requiring 3 days' total system restore. I think when surge is BIG,
| nothing can be protected from it.
The majority of data centers are protected from a lightning strike only at a
minimal level. I disagree about there being nothing to protect from "BIG"
strikes. But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on it.
--
|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: 01:44 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
| 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.
Not true.
When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
circuit".
--
|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: Michael A. TerrellDate: 01:51 04-05-08
|
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | 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.
>
> Not true.
>
> When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
> out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
> complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
> It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
> that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
> a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
>
> You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
> you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
> The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
> circuit".
Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
difference.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony HwangDate: 02:06 04-05-08
|
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> | 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.
>
> Not true.
>
> When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
> out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
> complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
> It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
> that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
> a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
>
> You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
> you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
> The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
> circuit".
>
Hmmm,
You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and
voltage(poential) Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we have to
rewrite Ohm's law. Show your credential to make a stamement like that.
Shameful.
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony HwangDate: 02:07 04-05-08
|
|
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
>>In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>| 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.
>>
>>Not true.
>>
>>When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
>>out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit
is
>>complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
>>It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
>>that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
>>a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
>>
>>You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
>>you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
>>The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
>>circuit".
>
>
>
> Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
> Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
> claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
> difference.
>
>
Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael A. TerrellDate: 02:21 04-05-08
|
|
Tony Hwang wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
> Mine is VE6CGX.
It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
|
|
|
|
Author: John DoeDate: 02:21 04-05-08
|
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>| You have never provided a source that agrees with you on
>| disputed issues.
>
> Nor do I need to...
You misspelled "cause I ain't got none".
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony HwangDate: 09:51 04-05-08
|
|
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
>>Mine is VE6CGX.
>
>
>
> It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
>
>
Hmmm,
That is sign format of novice class.
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael A. TerrellDate: 10:29 04-05-08
|
|
Tony Hwang wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> > Tony Hwang wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
> >>Mine is VE6CGX.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
> >
> >
> Hmmm,
> That is sign format of novice class.
In more than one way. Read some of the other crap he's posted on
news:alt.engineering.electrical if you have a strong stomach.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
|
|
|
|
Author: Tony HwangDate: 11:13 04-05-08
|
|
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>>Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>
>>>Tony Hwang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
>>>>Mine is VE6CGX.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Hmmm,
>>That is sign format of novice class.
>
>
>
> In more than one way. Read some of the other crap he's posted on
> news:alt.engineering.electrical if you have a strong stomach.
>
>
Hmmm,
Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
dropped.
|
|
|
|
Author: Mike TomlinsonDate: 11:35 04-05-08
|
|
In article <131decf4-6a8d-42e8-a973-b71a30a7f862@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups
.com>, w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> writes
>When trader misread, then trader reclessly invented MOVs
>to provide internal protection.
>Trader then assumed
>that protection must be provided by MOVs.
>trader assumes protection must be provided by MOVs.
>MOVs inside appliances is
>another trader 'wild speculation'
>trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read what
>was posted.
>Mythical MOV inside
>appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to see;
> MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth.
>then trader would not invent
>fictional MOVs inside appliances.
The same thing said eight times. Part of w_tom's modus operandi -
repeat something enough times and it must be true.
> What w_tom posted is not found in
>trader's wild speculation.
Referring to yourself in the third person again. You need help from a
mental health professional, w_tom.
--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
(")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael A. TerrellDate: 12:49 04-05-08
|
|
Tony Hwang wrote:
>
> Hmmm,
> Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
> dropped.
Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or
_wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of dollars worth of
damage. I had a studio building and STL tower in Leesburg Florida hit
by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete from the building where
the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical. It WAS an excellent example
of _wacko_tom's UFER ground, before the steel vaporized inside damp
concrete. 95% of the damage was caused by the EMP. I lost the 11 GHz
Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system, all the computer terminals,
and had some minor problems with other electronics. It turned out that
the dead terminals all had high ESR electrolytics, and that they were
working because they were all on UPS before the strike took out all the
electricity. The power 1A2 supply needed some of the weird WE fuses,
one KTU card and was back in service. The STL was mounted on the tower
in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO module. It was 20 years old, and
at least 10 years obsolete, so it needed that module updated, anyway.
I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a STL
transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for repair &
upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I waited for the
new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we had been hit. Then I
moved the microwave racks to a closet in the corner of the building, and
used 4" EMT between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
have had strikes since then, but no problems.
--
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: Phil HowardDate: 12:52 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
| The same thing said eight times. Part of w_tom's modus operandi -
| repeat something enough times and it must be true.
That's a common MO of anyone arguing any point where the other party is not
accepting it. It happens on all sides. Nothing significant from this bit
of "info". Move along.
--
|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: 12:57 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|
|>| You have never provided a source that agrees with you on
|>| disputed issues.
|>
|> Nor do I need to...
|
| You misspelled "cause I ain't got none".
My sources predate the internet being the vast source of info it is today.
They include discussions with EE professors, and observing the work of
researchers. They also include analysis of events I've experienced, and
also events described that others experienced. And some comes from an old
ancient technology called a book (which I didn't get to keep because it
came from a library). My interest in it was always about the physics of how
it happens.
--
|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: 13:00 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|> | 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.
|>
|> Not true.
|>
|> When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
|> out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
|> complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
|> It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
|> that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
|> a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|>
|> You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
|> you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
|> The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
|> circuit".
|
|
| Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
| Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
| claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
| difference.
1. I *am* an amateur radio operator and I *do* know the difference.
2. Electromotive force is not a factor here, beyond what it might do to cause
physical motion of wires during a surge (not impossible, but not usually
considered).
--
|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: Timothy DanielsDate: 13:01 04-05-08
|
|
"w_tom" wrote:
> 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.
As always, "w_tom" ignores that the high voltages that short out
"3 miles of sky" will short out the underground power lines which
enter my building and buildings all over America. Anything able to
leap "3 miles of sky" will leap the fraction of an inch between the
power lines and the earthed metal conduit. What is left will be a
much lower voltage spike that can be handled by the average
"plug-in protector".
*TimDaniels*
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil HowardDate: 13:01 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
|> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|>>In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>
wrote:
|>>
|>>| 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.
|>>
|>>Not true.
|>>
|>>When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
|>>out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit
is
|>>complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
|>>It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
|>>that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
|>>a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|>>
|>>You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
|>>you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
|>>The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
|>>circuit".
|>
|>
|>
|> Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
|> Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
|> claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
|> difference.
|>
|>
| Hi,
| Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
| Mine is VE6CGX.
It can be seen in my signature on my posts.
--
|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: 13:02 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|> Tony Hwang wrote:
|>
|>>Hi,
|>>Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
|>>Mine is VE6CGX.
|>
|>
|>
|> It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
|>
|>
| Hmmm,
| That is sign format of novice class.
Which means my first ticket was novice. I upgraded a month after 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
