 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Surge / Ground / Lightning
There are 215 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 80 to 100.
|
Author: Phil HowardDate: 20:23 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.engineering.electrical Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
|> 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.
|>
|>
| Hi,
| Qucik check on Buckmaster shows he was born in '55. Technician
| plus(novice) holder. For his age, does not seem to have corresponding
| wisdom.
Whose wisdom are you judging? What have you see that I have posted that you
think is wrong? Would you like to debate the technical points? Or do you
just want to be one of those people that can only "win" by making personal
attacks?
--
|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: 20:26 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.engineering.electrical Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> 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).
Things like motors and generators, including Faraday's homopolar generator,
are interesting things to talk about (IMHO) ... in a different thread. Bring
it up (post a new thread) if you have a point to say or a question to ask.
It should generally go in alt.engineering.electrical, only, not the many other
groups that have been put in this thread.
--
|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: 20:27 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.engineering.electrical Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> 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".
|> |>
|> | 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.
|>
|> Your knowledge of electricity shows to be a very basic level. You completely
|> lack an understanding of how electricity does flow. You have no concept at all
|> of transmission lines (and Michael A. Terrell seems to have forgotten his).
|> Credentials have nothing to do with whether a statement is correct or not.
|> Mine is correct but you don't have sufficient background to even understand it.
|>
| Plonk!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bye. Nothing missed. Nothing gained.
--
|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: 20:28 04-05-08
|
|
In alt.engineering.electrical VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.engineering.electrical VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:
|>
|> | Actually, a real current will flow until the line's capacitance is
|> | charged to the source voltage. When the source is removed, the energy
|> | involved will remain until it is leaked off through the inter-wire
|> | resistance. If the source is AC, no net energy will "flow", except
that
|> | lost in the inter-wire resistance. If the line length is long enough at
|> | the frequency involved, reflections from the end of an incorrectly
|> | terminated transmission line will return to dissipate energy in the
|> | source resistance.
|>
|> That reflection even happens with DC. When the switch closes, you have a
|> rising wavefront leading the chargeup of the line. Unless the far end has
|> a perfectly matched load, that wavefront will reflect back. This is in
|> fact how a lot of very early radio transmissions were tuned, with the
|> "switch" being a noisy spark gap, and the "line" being a long
wire antenna
|> cut to a specific length. You don't even need to have 2 conductors.
|
| That's because a switch closure is not really DC. Resolve a step
| function into a Fourier series, and it has an infinite number of AC
| components. In the case of a single wire, you do need to consider EM
| theory.
Electromagnetic, yes. Electromotive (as someone else suggested), not really.
--
|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: bud--Date: 20:40 04-05-08
|
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> 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:
>
> |> | 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.
Because some of what you believe has nothing to do with the real world.
>
> | 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.
Of course they are idiots. They are all members of the IEEE. Only idiots
can join. And only the biggest idiots can write publications for the IEEE.
Martzloff is not only an IEEE idiot. He worked for the NIST - another
well known lair of idiots.
Thank goodness you aren’t a member.
>
> |> 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.
If you had actually read the quote:
"*it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line concepts to
wiring systems*"
and "*this means that the line must be at least 200 m long before one
can think in terms of classical transmission line behavior*."
Repeating: "Residential branch circuits aren't 200m."
> Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
> at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases.
Like branch circuits under 200 meters long.
>
> | 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 intended "induced" meaning produced by including the most damaging -
strikes to utility lines.
>
> 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.
From the Martzloff quote you didn't read:
"For a 1.2/50 us impulse". That is 1.2 microseconds rise time.
From w_'s favorite engineer source "an 8 microsecond rise time".
Don’t you read anything?
The numbers come from an IEEE standard - accepted by everyone but you.
>
>
> | 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).
I provided 2 direct sources. They follow IEEE standards for rise time.
Still never seen - a cite that supports your opinion.
It is Phil’s phantasy physics.
--
bud--
|
|
|
|
Author: bud--Date: 20:57 04-05-08
|
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz>
wrote:
>
> | 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".
>
> It does not always make the 2nd leap to ground. There is not always a metal
> conduit available. I've seen such strikes.
With no service panel suppressor it is well accepted that at about 6kV
there will be arc-over from bus to enclosure for (US) circuit breaker
panels. While arcing, the voltage will be hundreds of volts. Since the
panel/system ground is connected to the earth electrode (US) most of
surge energy is dumped to earth.
If talking about a plug-in suppressor, Experiments by Martzloff (the
idiot/member-of-the-IEEE) show surprisingly little energy reaches the
suppressor. Circuit impedance greatly limits the current, and thus
energy. Surprisingly, there is more energy at the MOV for lower surge
currents (on short branch circuits) because the MOV can hold the panel
voltage below the 6kV breakover voltage. With up to 10kA surges, the max
energy at the MOV was 34J with most cases below 1.2J.
--
bud--
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 20:59 04-05-08
|
|
On May 3, 11:38 pm, Tony Hwang <drago...@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.
Broadcasting electronics atop the Empire State Building and World
Trade Center were struck 25 and 40 times annually without damage.
Commercial broadcasters with antennas thousands of feet up also suffer
such strikes and cannot suffer damage. Your telco with switching
centers in every town; with their $multi-million switching computer
connected to overhead wires all over town; must suffer such surges
routinely without damage. Mid 1900 research indicates a thunderstorm
typically creates maybe 100 surges - and no damage.
Likely the outgoing path through that scale was via concrete floor.
What was the incoming path? Well what in that circuit was damaged?
Or was it only data loss, which means hardware protected itself when
too much surge current was permitted inside the building?
How many days did your telco require to reprogram that switching
center computer after every thunderstorm? They can suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm and not even suffer data loss - let alone
hardware damage? Exactly. Effective protection means every wire in
every incoming cable has a short connection to earth via a 'whole
house' protector AND separation of up to 50 meters between the
protector and electronics. Not used are plug-in protectors. Any
protection that would work at the equipment is already inside the
equipment. Not acceptable is damage from lightning =96 even data loss.
And if damage does occur, telco located and corrected an earthing
defect.
Another example in Central Florida where Orange County's emergency
response system suffered lightning damage. Lightning damage
eliminated by fixing the defect - earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
Same is described by van Deursen and van der Laan when lightning
caused damage to a nuclear hardened maritime radio station. Did they
cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can stop lightning damage"? Of course not.
Their IEEE paper describes how earthing defects (human failures) were
fixed. Lightning damage directly traceable to a defect in the
earthing system =96 human failure.
It is routine to suffer even the most massive surges and no surge
damage. Lightning routinely strikes communication facilities on Hoher
Peissenberg mountain in southern Germany - without damage.
Researchers even mounted electronics equipment to measure the currents
of each surge. Did direct lightning strike destroy that electronics
and communication equipment? Or course not. It is routine to suffer
direct strikes without electronics damage. However the human must
first learn what provides that protection - especially proper
connections to earth ground.
What makes surge protection so challenging? We can test other
designs. But we cannot test the surge protection system. Therefore,
when damage does occur, the responsible human locates and learns his
mistake - often must correct a defective in that earthing system.
Numerous professional citations also describe learning from the damage
because lightning damage is so easily avoid.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. As Phil
correctly notes:
> But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on it.
Simple earthing to meet NEC requirements creates significant
protection. High reliability facilities may spend even hundreds more
to obtain but a little more protection. On average, a destructive
surge may occur once every seven years. How much would you spend.
$20 for some earthing rods to significantly upgrade protection; or
$hundreds to also have protection installed in Central Florida:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
How much was that data worth? A question asked of others since Tony
Hwang routinely denies this stuff. He suffered massive station
damage. Then he declared nothing can protect from lightning even
though his industry peers says completely otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael A. TerrellDate: 21:09 04-05-08
|
|
Timothy Daniels wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> [ElectoMagnetic Pulse]
>
> > 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,
>
> [Equivalent Series Resistance - the total of all internal resistances
> of a capacitor measured in Ohms.]
>
> > and that they were working because they were all on UPS
>
> [Uninterruptible Power Supply]
>
> > 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
>
> [Studio-to-Transmitter Link (see http://www.fmamtv.com/rdstl.html)]
>
> > was mounted on the tower in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO
>
> [Local Oscillator]
>
> > 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
>
> [Electrical Metallic Tubing, i.e. metal conduit]
>
> > between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
> > have had strikes since then, but no problems.
>
> Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
> protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
> I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
> buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
> surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
> equipment in use?
The same thing we did in the studios and transmitter sites. Use a
combination of protection at the building's main disconnect, and
individual protection at each critical device. The only thing that I've
lost in the last ten years was when lightning hit a huge pine tree, and
cut the top half of it off. It landed on the ground right over the
buried telephone line, and a second strike blew out the modem and MOV
protection on the phone line. It also destroyed that underground phone
line. The replacement is in 1" PVC conduit to make it easier to
replace, just in case. I live right on the edge of a protected green
belt, in north central Florida. The tallest of those trees would fall a
couple feet from my house.
I lost power from that strike, but no other electronics.
--
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: Michael A. TerrellDate: 21:14 04-05-08
|
|
w_tom wrote:
>
> On May 3, 11:38 pm, Tony Hwang <drago...@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.
>
> Broadcasting electronics atop the Empire State Building and World
> Trade Center were struck 25 and 40 times annually without damage.
yawn. WTF does this have to do with residential electrical service?
> Commercial broadcasters with antennas thousands of feet up also suffer
> such strikes and cannot suffer damage.
Bullshit. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
are blowing smoke.
> Your telco with switching
> centers in every town; with their $multi-million switching computer
> connected to overhead wires all over town; must suffer such surges
> routinely without damage.
More bullshit. They use the best protection that can, but some
damaged does happen.
> Mid 1900 research indicates a thunderstorm
> typically creates maybe 100 surges - and no damage.
Typical lightning storms in Florida are 1000 to 15000 in a half hour.
> Likely the outgoing path through that scale was via concrete floor.
> What was the incoming path? Well what in that circuit was damaged?
> Or was it only data loss, which means hardware protected itself when
> too much surge current was permitted inside the building?
>
> How many days did your telco require to reprogram that switching
> center computer after every thunderstorm?
What reprogramming?
> They can suffer 100 surges
> during every thunderstorm and not even suffer data loss - let alone
> hardware damage?
No.
> Exactly.
No.
> Effective protection means every wire in
> every incoming cable has a short connection to earth via a 'whole
> house' protector AND separation of up to 50 meters between the
> protector and electronics. Not used are plug-in protectors. Any
> protection that would work at the equipment is already inside the
> equipment. Not acceptable is damage from lightning – even data loss.
> And if damage does occur, telco located and corrected an earthing
> defect.
>
> Another example in Central Florida where Orange County's emergency
> response system suffered lightning damage. Lightning damage
> eliminated by fixing the defect - earthing:
> http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
>
> Same is described by van Deursen and van der Laan when lightning
> caused damage to a nuclear hardened maritime radio station. Did they
> cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can stop lightning damage"? Of course not.
> Their IEEE paper describes how earthing defects (human failures) were
> fixed. Lightning damage directly traceable to a defect in the
> earthing system – human failure.
>
> It is routine to suffer even the most massive surges and no surge
> damage. Lightning routinely strikes communication facilities on Hoher
> Peissenberg mountain in southern Germany - without damage.
> Researchers even mounted electronics equipment to measure the currents
> of each surge. Did direct lightning strike destroy that electronics
> and communication equipment? Or course not. It is routine to suffer
> direct strikes without electronics damage. However the human must
> first learn what provides that protection - especially proper
> connections to earth ground.
>
> What makes surge protection so challenging? We can test other
> designs. But we cannot test the surge protection system. Therefore,
> when damage does occur, the responsible human locates and learns his
> mistake - often must correct a defective in that earthing system.
> Numerous professional citations also describe learning from the damage
> because lightning damage is so easily avoid.
>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. As Phil
> correctly notes:
> > But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on it.
>
> Simple earthing to meet NEC requirements creates significant
> protection. High reliability facilities may spend even hundreds more
> to obtain but a little more protection. On average, a destructive
> surge may occur once every seven years. How much would you spend.
> $20 for some earthing rods to significantly upgrade protection; or
> $hundreds to also have protection installed in Central Florida:
> http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
> How much was that data worth? A question asked of others since Tony
> Hwang routinely denies this stuff. He suffered massive station
> damage. Then he declared nothing can protect from lightning even
> though his industry peers says completely otherwise.
More bullshit.
--
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: Michael A. TerrellDate: 21:16 04-05-08
|
|
Tony Hwang wrote:
>
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
> > In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> 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".
> > |>
> > | 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.
> >
> > Your knowledge of electricity shows to be a very basic level. You completely
> > lack an understanding of how electricity does flow. You have no concept at
all
> > of transmission lines (and Michael A. Terrell seems to have forgotten his).
> > Credentials have nothing to do with whether a statement is correct or not.
> > Mine is correct but you don't have sufficient background to even understand
it.
> >
> Plonk!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Phil is as deluded as ever.
--
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: bud--Date: 21:40 04-05-08
|
|
w_tom wrote:
> On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
>
> 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.
Complete nonsense.
>
> If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
> created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.
The lie resurrected.
Still missing - a link to any source that says UL listed plug-in
suppressors made after 1998 are a problem.
And undersized is a red herring. UL requires at least a minimal size.
Suppressors with much higher ratings are readily and cheaply available.
>
> Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
> protector, then surge energy somehow disappears.
Poor w__ is unable to understand the IEEE guide. Clearly explained
(starting pdf page 40) - plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or
stopping or absorbing). The guide also explains earthing occurs
elsewhere, not through the plug-in suppressor.
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors?
- 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)?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 21:51 04-05-08
|
|
On May 4, 11:13 am, Tony Hwang <drago...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code
> requirement was dropped.
Technology cannot be challenged? So you attack the messenger? Rush
Limbaugh would be proud. Same mockery also proved Saddam had WMDs.
At what point do you learn from professional citations - ask questions
about the science?
Ham radio operators who actually know enough about electricity to
understand surge protection also define protection in terms of
earthing. How many QST articles did you ignore =96 therefore not
understand what Phil, et al post? Another ham who learned: Bill
Otten in rec.radio.shortwave on 5 Aug 2005 entitled "grounding and
surge":
http://tinyurl.com/79xoa
and
http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/
Another station engineer who also says surge damage is avoidable -
but then, unlike Tony Hwang, he did his job; learned from his
experience:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
> Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
> 30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
> lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
> careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
> WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
> every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
> strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a
> strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines
> knocking *them* out, ...
> Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
> to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
> strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
> damage is *myth*. ...
> The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
> and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
> a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
> And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to
> go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just
> a low ohm DC path.
You claim to be a responsible station engineer. But you had a
lightning strike that created building damage and communication
equipment damage. No decent broadcasting engineer would have
considered that acceptable. Only one who did not even learn from QST
magazine would post foolishly blame Ufer grounds for making damage.
Yes an Ufer ground can result in damage when installed by a layman
who failed to learn the science. Rather than learn, Tony Hwang
declares failure as acceptable. Why are Ufer ground used? Because
Ufer grounding provided protection from direct strikes even to
munitions storage lockers - without damage. How curious. Ufer ground
work great where Tony Hwang is not in charge. Since Tony's facility
was not properly constructed or properly maintained, then Tony
considers damage acceptable. Failure is acceptable.
Educated station managers know lightning damage need not ever cause
damage. When damage does happen, then responsible station managers
find and eliminate the mistake. Tony Hwang knows otherwise; damage is
acceptable - that nothing can protect from lightning. So Tony Hwang
posts mockery and insults - and no technical facts.
How curious. Tony's peers learn from the damage, then eliminated
it.
|
|
|
|
Author: bud--Date: 21:57 04-05-08
|
|
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
> Bud is focusing on the low frequency energy and
> seems to think that is all there us because a lot of documents focus
> on it because more energy is in the low frequencies. Also, surges
> that come from a greater distance have the higher frequencies reduced.
>
> Bud either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
> not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it.
Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)
Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.
(But this is *Phil* - why should he need sources?)
--
bud--
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 22:03 04-05-08
|
|
On May 4, 2:55 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> I don't agree with that assessment of the plug-in protector. If the
> appliance has its own MOVs to protect stuff, then this would be true.
> Not all do. Some appliances are more sensitive than others. It just
> depends on what kind of surge is arriving, and where from. If it is
> differential mode on the power wires, the plug-in protector can do
> some important protection. Even with whole house protection in place,
> you can have some energy get past it, and the surge can be induced into
> the building wiring. Usually the induced surge is common mode, which
> by itself is less of a problem.
In short, your post is saying what my post said. 120 volt
electronics have long had protection up to 600 volts as defined by
industry standards. This was always accomplished without MOVs.
Notice all the dimmer switches replaced weekly due to surge damage?
Not replaced because even those devices contain significant internal
protection - without MOVs.
The differential mode surge (what a plug-in protector can protect
from) typically does no damage as indicated by the large numbers of
appliances - even smoke detectors - that survive these trivial
surges. Survive without MOV protectors because internal protetion is
provided as part of the design - not an add on provided by MOVs.
The typically destructive surge occurs maybe one every seven years.
This is the surge that must be earthing before entering building.
This is the surge that so easily overwhelms protection inside
appliances. This is the surge that makes the properly earthing 'whole
house' protector necessary and so effective.
Yes, it is possible to make other protectors - absorption type.
Industry benchmarks also provide other examples including bulkheads.
Surges running through these bulkheads are further impeded. But each
is supplementary protection. To be effective, typically quite large
or expensive (Surgex, Brickwall, Zerosurge, etc). . How much is one
willing to spend? Effective supplmentary protection is also quite
expensive. Anything less is already found inside an appliance.
Yes, a plug-in protector can provide protection. Does it increase
protection by 80% or 95%. Protection so massive that the homeowner
may never see another surge in his lifetime?. Even a simplest
(properly installed) 'whole house' protector should provide protection
that significant. Without that 'whole hosue' protector, then plug-in
protectors may even contribute to appliance damage. To be effective -
to not contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance, a plug-in
protector needs a properly earthed 'whole house' system. Again, I
have not talked pass Bud. Bud promotes supplemental protection as a
complete solution. Defined by you and I are a surge a plug-in
protector might protect from AND why a plug-in protector can also
contribute to appliance damage.
Yes, your TV antenna examples are also correct - including how
either can be damaged. That being too complicated for most readers
AND irrelevant if both antenna wires are properly installed. Before
antenna wires enter a building, both antenna wires must first make a
short connection to the single point earth ground - meaning protection
standard in TV tuners should not be overwhelmed. Same protection also
installed by the cable company.
Only Bud is limiting himself to one aspect of the issue. You and I
are both discussing the many types of surges including the other that
typically causes most damage. Bud must ignore that typically
destructive surge. Those surges also create Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000
volt earthed destructively through an adjacent TV. Those surges are
why his other citation says:
> The best surge protection in the world can
> be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Those surges that typically do damage AND that plug-in protectors do
not claim to protect from - Bud ignores that entire discussion.
|
|
|
|
Author: Don KellyDate: 22:05 04-05-08
|
|
----------------------------
"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:dncTj.112858$rd2.31639@pd7urf3no...
> 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.
------------------------
Actually, you are showing some confusion. Phil is right in that he is
bringing out a point that normal lumped RLC circuit theory doesn't handle
because it essentially treats the speed of propagation of electrical signals
as if it were infinite- which isn't true.
1)Current (not current flow which is meaningless) is NOT energy.
Current*voltage*time IS energy-
.
2)Also, on energizing a line whether it is open or closed, there is a
current flow as the applied voltage "sees" the characteristic impedance of
the line (wire or whatever) so a current will flow-even on an open circuit-
until there is a modifying reflection from the termination. For a house the
distances are such that this may be of the order of 0.1-0.2 microsecond.
After all such reflections at terminations have ceased or are negligable,
conventional circuit theory is applicable.
In these situations, you are dealing with wave propagation rather than
conventional circuit theory.
This is the regime that is of interest in considering "surge protectors"
As to the advantage of "whole house" vs local surge protection, "whole
house
protection depends on distances to all "protected" items being small. Local
protection doesn't but is simply that- local. The effectiveness of either
depends considerably on grounding and other factors.
The spate of name calling doesn't do anything of use to anybody.
--
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 22:11 04-05-08
|
|
On May 4, 9:57=A0pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
> they are not as smart as Phil.)
>
> Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.
Every Bud citations contradicts Bud's claims. So Bud must do what
those without knowledge do - post insults.
Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.
Good. Bud can post those manufacture spec numbers that list each type
of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. 400 requests and Bud
still cannot provide any specs? So Bud must post insults.
How to identify the liar - who does exactly what Rush Limbaugh
does? He posts no facts (no manufacturer spec numbers) and his posts
are only insults. Bud posts only insults. That says Bud lies (and
that he has not technical facts). But then profits are at risk. That
justifies anything.
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 22:16 04-05-08
|
|
On May 3, 4:16 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> ...
> 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.
> ...
> Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
> papers on surges and suppression.
Both of Bud's citations - guides for laymen - describe how a plug-in
protector can work AND how such devices can even create appliance
damage. Both state what an effective protector needs - short
connection to earth ground. Both state why a protector without
earthing can even contribute to appliance damage.
Even Martzloff is quite blunt about this. Bud quotes from Martzloff
selectively. Meanwhile this conclusion is so fundamental that
Martzloff makes it the first point in his IEEE paper:
> Conclusion:
> 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
> show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
> even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
> present at the point of connection of appliances.
A plug-in (point of connection) protector can contribute to
appliance damage. Every Bud citation says that. Even Martzloff says
that. Why do professionals routinely install 'whole house' type
protectors instead of plug-in protectors? "Objectionable difference
in =85 voltages ... [when] protective devices are ... at the point of
connection". Industry professionals note this problem with plug-in
protectors. Also are those 'scary pictures of plug-in protectors
located where fire hazards are greater. Bud conveniently ignores all
that. Profits are at risk.
|
|
|
|
Author: w_tomDate: 22:34 04-05-08
|
|
On May 4, 9:14 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Bullshit. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
> grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
> are blowing smoke.
People who are more than TV repairmen learn from their mistakes and
correct reasons for that failure. TV repairmen only fix defects -
never bother to learn how those failures can be avoided. Let's have
some fun. Let's reply using the same mockery and insult that Michael
uses. Except this post will be accurate about Michaels intelligence.
Others who bother to learn discover what happens when a radio
station repeatedly gets knocked off the air. Eventually that station
engineer may hire someone who knows more than a TV repairman. What
was the solution to so much radio station damage? They fixed mistakes
made by a naive station engineer. They installed and upgreaded
earthing. No more lightning damage.
Michael will deny reality because Michael knows without first
learning facts. Others can learn what Michael Terrell denies.
Lightning need not cause damage when one thinks, instead, like an
engineer. Michael Terrell who learned to think like and engineer -
not like the technician - would know this. Radio station repeatedly
damaged. Then they finally admited that failure is not acceptable:
http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/nebraska.html
> Based on a belief that "too much" grounding was attracting
> lightning strikes, grounding connections on the tower's six
> sets of guy wires had been disconnected sometime in the
> past (Figure 4). This action may, in fact, have helped direct
> lightning discharge current down the antenna tower itself,
> bringing the strike closer to the studio/transmitter building.
Why did the station engineer make damage easier? He could not
bother to learn about stuff even published in QST magazine - the ham
radio operator's magazine.
Why does Michael Terrell deny this? He is a technician - a TV
repairman. His posts attack the messenger rather than address
technology. Michael Terrell is correct. Some stations are knocked
off the air by lightning. Those with informed station engineers
correct the defect - learn from their mistakes and eliminate future
failures. Michael Terrell's attitude declares failure as acceptable.
But then Michael Terrell could not think like an engineer which is why
he also could never be promoted above enlistedman.
|
|
|
|
Author: G-squaredDate: 22:52 04-05-08
|
|
On May 4, 9:24=A0am, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:
> "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> > =A0 We 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.
>
> > =A0MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. =A0Had trader read
what
> > was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent
> > fictional MOVs inside appliances.
>
> Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down
to people
> as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?
>
> You read sometimes like one of those old children's "Golden Books".
Hey, I LIKED reading Golden Books to my kids. They didn't like W-TOMs
posts at all.
GG
|
|
|
|
Author: krwDate: 22:53 04-05-08
|
|
In article <d4a62a8a-464b-461f-a297-b6bc581749c3
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, w_tom1@usa.net says...
> On May 4, 9:57=A0pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> > Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
> > they are not as smart as Phil.)
> >
> > Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.
>=20
> Every Bud citations contradicts Bud's claims.=20
Don't be so stupid. =20
> So Bud must do what
> those without knowledge do - post insults.
Anything truthful posted about you would be an insult to a normal=20
person.
> Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.
Bullshit. Either you're a goddamned liar or are denser than a=20
concrete slab. He's repeatedly said there is *no* protection from a=20
direct strike (except to be elsewhere).
> Good. Bud can post those manufacture spec numbers that list each type
> of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. 400 requests and Bud
> still cannot provide any specs? So Bud must post insults.
Ok, that answers it. You *are* a liar.
> How to identify the liar - who does exactly what Rush Limbaugh
> does? He posts no facts (no manufacturer spec numbers) and his posts
> are only insults. Bud posts only insults. That says Bud lies (and
> that he has not technical facts). But then profits are at risk. That
> justifies anything.
There goes W, doing what he claims others do; not only stupid, but a=20
liar and hypocrite, to boot.
--=20
Keith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
