Re: Phone line surge protection?
Jesco Lincke
> Is there any point to connecting your phone/broadband line and Ethernet
> cable to the surge protector? Or, is this just a gimmick concocted by the
> surge protection industry?
>
And this has what to do exactly with storage?
Bob Willard
> Is there any point to connecting your phone/broadband line and Ethernet
> cable to the surge protector? Or, is this just a gimmick concocted by the
> surge protection industry?
>
For the phone line, yes. A few years ago we had a very-near lightning hit.
The surge came in through my phone line, wiped out the 14.4 modem and a
couple of chips on the MB; the rest of the PC and the peripherals were OK.
The power line went through a line conditioner before my PC, so I'm sure
the surge source was the phone line (as if the blackened EISA modem board
wasn't enough of a clue).
The Ethernet cable should be safe, unless you've run that cable outdoors
and didn't run it through a pipe or ROMEX.
If your broadband line is Fios DSL, I'd guess that was safe, since fibre
doesn't conduct electrons. If your broadband is copper DSL, check with your
DSL vendor; I don't know how or where the DSL mux is grounded.
--
Cheers, Bob
Aidan Karley
> Is there any point to connecting your phone/broadband line and Ethernet
> cable to the surge protector?
>
telecoms company, and he is putting in expensive bits of this sort of kit
all day every day. He keeps a box of specialised telephone line surge
protectors in his van and puts them into every line that he's working on,
or os he tells me. He doesn't see many failures, or many cases where the
surge protector has gone and protected the equipment from damage, but he
does see some, and his employers (who lease a *lot* of very expensive
equipment to a lot of clients) obviously think that the 5 minutes it takes
per line (and a non-trivial amount of wiring cabinet space and other
materials) is worth the effort.
I have never taken apart a "surge protector" system to find if they
use similar devices internally. I'd just go and ask Kenny for a handful if
I thought it was ever going to be a significant problem. To be honest, I'd
think that a proper UPS system was considerably higher on my list of
priorities. I suspect that domestic "surge protector" power strips etc are
FUD for selling useless kit to the fearful. Industrial equipment that
covers some of the same areas of concern costs a LOT more, and it's
capabilities are much more carefully described in the data sheets. That
makes me think that the problem generally needs a lot more analysis than a
£15 outlay suggests. I doubt they're likely to hurt though (except for the
£15).
--
Aidan Karley
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:29 +0100, but posted later.
w_tom
> Is there any point to connecting your phone/broadband line and Ethernet
> surge protection industry?
Depends on the protector. More specifically where it connects and what
it connects to. View another post that claims surge came in on phone
line to damage a modem. Well, he assumed. Why would a surge enter on
phone line when phone lines routinely have a surge protector,
installed free, by the telco? Did he know about that existing surge
protector - or just immediately assume?
To better answer your question, look at how a modem is typically
damaged. A direct strike to AC mains (highest wires, maybe down the
street and therefore assumed an indirect strike) carries a surge
directly into household appliances. What does a surge seek? Earth
ground. What causes damage? Surge finds a destructive path to
earth. IOW only some appliances are damaged; those making a better
path to earth. Damaged appliance must have both an incoming and
outgoing surge path.
Surge enters on AC mains, was not earthed at mains box, and then
arrives at a modem. AC electric is the incoming path. Outgoing to
earth ground is on phone line via that telco installed 'whole house'
protector.
After a surge is traveling through everything is a path (everything
simultaneously because it is electricity), only later is something in
that path damaged. This sentence is defined by how electriicty works
- and what so many forget when assuming.
Most common failure point in modems is the DAA section. Once
damaged, the modem will not make a connection. Most common damage is
to a PNP transistor that drives off-hook relay. Either the modem
remains connected to phone lines constantly, or modem never makes a
connection. Error message for both is "No Dialtone Detected".
Notice so many details because this damage was repeatedly analyzed -
some modems then repaired. How many posters know by working and
learning at this level of detail?
The naive assume surges enter like waves, crash on a beach (or
modem), and then stop. Not for one minute But again, read that
sentence 3 paragraphs up.. As noted above, it is electricity. First
electricity flows in a complete path from cloud to earth ground. Only
later does something with both an incoming and outgoing path get
damaged.
The most common source of damage to answering machines, modems,
faxes, and portable phone base stations: AC electric.
Having confronted popular myths (how surges damage), we move on to
another point. No surge is stopped, blocked, or absorbed. Surges
must be shunted (diverted, clamped, bonded, connected) to what surges
seek - earth ground. A protector is not protection. 1) It cannot stop
or absorb surges. 2) Earth provides the protection. 3) Protector is
effective when it shunts that surge to earth. A protector is only a
connecting device to protection - earth ground.
Notice how a telco 'installed for free' protector is connected.
Each wire connects to earth via a protector inside the NID - point
where their wires connect to yours. NID also must have an essential
earthing wire. Wire must be short ('less than 10 feet'), separated
from non-earthing wires, no splices or sharp bends, and connect to the
single point earth ground. 'Single point'? Yes, Not only must an
electrode be best earthing for a building. It must the only earthing
point - single point. All utilities that enter must first connect to
the surge protection - that common earthing electrode.
An industry professional demonstrates the concept in this
application note:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
Even underground wires must connect to that single point ground.
Every wire in every cable connects to earthing either via a protector
(AC electric and phone) or by a direct, hardwire connection (cable TV,
satellite dish). Notice surge protection for cable TV and satellite
dish needs no surge protector. Why? Surge protectors are not
protection. Earthing is the protection. Protector is simply a
connecting device to protection - earth ground.
So what do you do. First, building earthing must meet and exceed
post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. Each utility wire
must make a 'less than 10 foot' connection to that essential
earthing. The most common source of surges comes from wires highest
on poles (most exposed) - AC electric. Therefore one AC electric
'whole house' protector is THE most important device to connect to
earthing. Notice why that modem was damaged - no properly earthed
'whole house' protector on AC electric.
'Whole house' protectors are sold by more responsible companies with
names long recognized for quality: GE, Leviton, Square D, Cutler-
Hammer, Intermatic, and Siemens are just some. A 'whole house'
protector is even available in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.
How to identify completely ineffective (and grossly overpriced)
protectors: 1) no dedicated wire for that 'less than 10 foot'
connection, and 2) manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing.
Soon a troll will arrive to promote those ineffective protectors.
He will say earthing is not necessary because his income comes from
promoting those myths. When he arrives, the tone of this discussion
will become personal attacks - because he lies and because if you
learn why earthing is so essential, then his income is at risk.
Meanwhile, responsible professional have been discussing effective
protection for almost 100 years. A long list of professional
citations is listed in multiple posts is in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit
needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA
What is the only one common factor in every effective surge
protection 'system'? Earth ground. No way around that requirement.
No earth ground means no effective protection.
Again, look at how that above modem was damaged. Look at how
another concluded without first learning facts electrical. Notice how
the technology completely changes his conclusion AND demonstrates by
all high reliability faculties use 'whole house' protectors connected
short to enhanced earthing. Single point earth ground is THE
protection - not some 'magic box' protector that will somehow stop
what three miles of sky could not.
Yes, reading this multiple times will be necessary. Concepts
essential for protecting telephone systems even 70 years ago is
routinely denied by those who somehow know a 'magic box' is
protection.
Answers for ethernet and other information has not yet been
discussed. Grasp this before more infomation can be provided.
chrisv
>Depends on the protector.
Do you google daily for new usenet "surge" threads? I swear, wherever
and whenever the issue pops-up you are there.
Arno Wagner
>>Depends on the protector.
Hehe. Possibly he thinks that most people do not understand how
surge-protection works and so his semi-knolwdge will not be too
obvious....
Armo
w_tom
> Hehe. Possibly he thinks that most people do not understand how
> surge-protection works and so his semi-knolwdge will not be too
> obvious....
Most who recommend power strip protectors don't even know how
electricity works. The OP asked. Provided is common knowledge where
effective surge protection is installed.
Arno Wagner
>>Depends on the protector.
On a second note, this guy is still a complete incompetent. Some
very silly things in there, that only somebody that does not
understand what he is talking about could say. I think he tries
to throw a lot of technical data ''fragments'' at people to create
the illusion of competence.
Personal highlight: The PNP relais driver transistor. No relation to the
issue at hand at all.
Arno
bud--
> On Apr 1, 3:29 pm, Serge <no_s...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Is there any point to connecting your phone/broadband line and Ethernet
> > cable to the surge protector? Or, is this just a gimmick concocted by the
> > surge protection industry?
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to
AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005
(the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency
formerly called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001
Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public
to explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was
targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background.
Both guides discuss multiport suppressors. They are not a gimmick.
All interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-
in suppressor, or interconnecting wires should go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, cable TV, should also go
through the protector. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor
prevents damaging voltages such as between power and phone wires.
>
> Having confronted popular myths (how surges damage), we move on to
> another point. No surge is stopped, blocked, or absorbed. Surges
> must be shunted (diverted, clamped, bonded, connected) to what surges
> seek - earth ground. A protector is not protection. 1) It cannot stop
> or absorb surges. 2) Earth provides the protection. 3) Protector is
> effective when it shunts that surge to earth. A protector is only a
> connecting device to protection - earth ground.
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common ground at
the surge suppressor, not earthing, stopping, blocking, absorbing,
diverting. w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) in
earthing. Since plug-in suppressors do not work by earthing he
believes they cannot possibly work. But both the IEEE and NIST guides
say plug-in surge suppressors are effective.
> Notice surge protection for cable TV and satellite
> dish needs no surge protector.
Meaning no surge protection from core to shield is provided at the
service entry ground block. The IEEE guide says that the core to
shield voltage is then limited only by breakdown voltage of F
connectors, typically 2000-4000V (US). And "there is obviously the
possibility of damage to TV tuners and cable modems from the very high
voltages that can be developed, especially from nearby lightning."
CATV wires going through a plug-in suppressor will clamp that voltage.
> A 'whole house'
> protector is even available in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.
In a thread a few days ago 2 people looked at internet sites and
found:
Lowes had NO 'whole house' suppressors.
Home Depot had no 'whole house' suppressors near $50. The 2
suppressors available had no specs available from Home Depot or the
manufacturer.
>
> How to identify completely ineffective (and grossly overpriced)
> protectors: 1) no dedicated wire for that 'less than 10 foot'
> connection, and 2) manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing.
Statement of religious belief in earthing #3.
>
> Soon a troll will arrive to promote those ineffective protectors.
> He will say earthing is not necessary because his income comes from
> promoting those myths. When he arrives, the tone of this discussion
> will become personal attacks - because he lies and because if you
> learn why earthing is so essential, then his income is at risk.
The troll has already arrived. w_, being evangelical in his belief in
earthing, searches google groups for "surge" to paste in his religious
tract to convert the heathens.(Yes chrisv...) And sure enough the
personal attacks started - contrary views are lies from people paid by
manufacturers.
>
> What is the only one common factor in every effective surge
> protection 'system'? Earth ground. No way around that requirement.
> No earth ground means no effective protection.
Statement of religious belief in earthing #4
For reliable information read the IEEE and/or NIST guides. Both say
plug-in suppressors are effective.
Or read w_'s links on plug-in suppressors. There are none.
Looks like no pigeons in this newsgroup w_
--
bud--
bud--
>
> The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
> --
> bud--
Mike Tomlinson
<chr...@nospam.invalid> writes
>Do you google daily for new usenet "surge" threads?
Of course he does. And power supply threads too.
w_tom has never declared his professional or commercial interest in
surge protection despite being invited to on several occasions, and he's
most certainly not above blatantly lying and twisting other people's
posts to try and make his point. He even ignores the differences
between the electrical systems in the USA and Europe in an attempt at
cheap point-scoring.
A search for w_tom or w_tom1 in Google Groups is enlightening. He comes
off worst in any thread where he gets involved in an argument. His
posts consist mostly of FUD with a few technical-sounding bits culled
from Google tossed in in an attempt to make him sound knowledgeable.
I personally think that w_tom is an idiot savant when it comes to surge
protection, except he lost the savant bit somewhere along the line.
--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.badvista.org/
(")_(") http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Mike Tomlinson
<w_t...@usa.net> writes
More FUD from the surge protection idiot savant w_tithead desperately
trying to boost his income:
>Why would a surge enter on
>phone line when phone lines routinely have a surge protector,
>installed free, by the telco?
You didn't even know that British Telecom (not British Telephone as you
called them in a recent post) fits a surge protector on every phone line
it installs until I told you, did you? And now you're pretending you
knew that all along.
[rest of w_tom's dishonest and ignorant crap snipped]
w_tom
> Personal highlight: The PNP relais driver transistor. No relation to the
> issue at hand at all.
PNP transistor is often a path used by surges from computer, through
modem, to earth ground via phone line. How would one learn this?
Fix electronics to trace surge paths; also learn how surges damage.
That PNP transistor accurately defines how surge damage occurs.
Damage on modems, broadband, etc is typically from AC electric -
utilities wires most exposed and routinely struck. How to protect
modem, broadband, or even cable? Each wire is earthed short to a
common electrode. Some directly to ground. Some via a protector.
Bottom line - earthing defines the protection - anywhere in the world.
w_tom
>> The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
>>http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversio...
>
> Usehttp://tinyurl.com/2qrszf
View page 42 Figure 8. Protector is too far from earth ground and
too close to electronics. Therefore 8000 volts punches through and
destroys TV. Bud claims that earthing is not necessary. But as
figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even destroy
the TV.
Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection.
But even his own citation says otherwise. From
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
Another author that Bud quotes frequently, Martzloff, even warns about
Bud's plug-in protectors.
> 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.
Figure 8 on page 42 demonstrates how plug-in protectors contribute to
damage as Martzloff also warns about in his IEEE paper.
Arno Wagner
> On Apr 2, 10:24 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Personal highlight: The PNP relais driver transistor. No relation to the
>> issue at hand at all.
> PNP transistor is often a path used by surges from computer, through
> modem, to earth ground via phone line. How would one learn this?
> Fix electronics to trace surge paths; also learn how surges damage.
> That PNP transistor accurately defines how surge damage occurs.
Complete nonsense. There is no relation between the type of
transistor and a surge path. The relais-driver transistor
is isolated from the phone-line input. And, if it is a PNP
driver, it is a high-side driver, meaning one side of the
relais-coil is grounded already. You are clueless.
Arno
w_tom
> Complete nonsense. There is no relation between the type of
> transistor and a surge path. The relais-driver transistor
> is isolated from the phone-line input. And, if it is a PNP
> driver, it is a high-side driver, meaning one side of the
> relais-coil is grounded already. You are clueless.
No relationship was made between the type of transistor and that
surge path. Arno made assumptions and now takes offense at being
caught posting in error. That PNP transistor is a standard component
for a modem's off hook relay. PNP tells the informed where damage
occurs in a modem. A surge that enters on AC mains and finds earth
ground via phone line often damages that PNP transistor. If Arno knew
standard modem design, then he would not have posted that he did not
know.
Meanwhile, appliance is damaged when a surge takes a path through
that appliance to earth ground. Protection is to shunt a surge to
earth in a path that is not through and is distant from the
appliance. A technology that was standard even before WWII. Today,
some automatically know all about surge protection - and yet never
learned that the protection is earth ground. And so we now have 'magic
box' protection that will somehow stop what three miles of sky could
not.
chrisv
>On Apr 2, 10:24 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Personal highlight: The PNP relais driver transistor. No relation to the
>> issue at hand at all.
>
> PNP transistor is often a path used by surges from computer, through
>modem, to earth ground via phone line. How would one learn this?
>Fix electronics to trace surge paths; also learn how surges damage.
>That PNP transistor accurately defines how surge damage occurs.
Clueless gibber.
bud--
> On Apr 2, 2:56 pm, "bud--" <budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> >> The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
> >>http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversio...
>
> > Usehttp://tinyurl.com/2qrszf
>
> View page 42 Figure 8. Protector is too far from earth ground and
> too close to electronics. Therefore 8000 volts punches through and
> destroys TV. Bud claims that earthing is not necessary. But as
> figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even destroy
> the TV.
in suppressor.]
For those with minimal reading and thinking ability, the text says "to
protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required".
And the protector "without proper earthing" did not destroy anyything.
It protected TV1 and lowered the surge voltage at TV2 from 10,000V ot
8,000V. This guide says plug-in suppressors are effective.
>
> Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection.
Bullcrap. I recommend reading the IEEE guide which includes earthing
as one of the major protection methods. I *repeat* the explanation in
the IEEE guide - plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not
earthing. But that violates w_'s religious belief in earthing, and he
thinks plug-in suppressors can't possibly work.
> But even his own citation says otherwise. From
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
>
> > You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> > "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> > neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> > divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
The question is not earthing. The *only* question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. About that the NIST guide says "this is the easiest
solution".
>
> Another author that Bud quotes frequently, Martzloff, even warns about
> Bud's plug-in protectors.> 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.
>
> Figure 8 on page 42 demonstrates how plug-in protectors contribute to
> damage as Martzloff also warns about in his IEEE paper.
w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed
surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
And Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors are
effective.
w_ has taken 3 sources that say plug-in suppressors are effective and
tried to make them say the opposite.
But the IEEE and NIST guides, as well as the Martzloff paper, say plug-
in suppressors are effective.
Still missing, as always, links to a source that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective..
--
bud--
Mike Tomlinson
- <bud...@isp.com> writes
>w_ has taken 3 sources that say plug-in suppressors are effective and
>tried to make them say the opposite.
Which is his usual modus operandi.
Arno Wagner
> On Apr 3, 1:15 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Complete nonsense. There is no relation between the type of
>> transistor and a surge path. The relais-driver transistor
>> is isolated from the phone-line input. And, if it is a PNP
>> driver, it is a high-side driver, meaning one side of the
>> relais-coil is grounded already. You are clueless.
> No relationship was made between the type of transistor and that
> surge path. Arno made assumptions and now takes offense at being
> caught posting in error. That PNP transistor is a standard component
> for a modem's off hook relay. PNP tells the informed where damage
> occurs in a modem.
The two possible types of bipolar transistors are PNP and NPN.
You seem not to know what these terms mean.
BTW, typical Relais drivers are low-side and use NPN transisters,
also because NPN transistors have better switching properties.
Arno
Arno Wagner
> In article <1175618688.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, bud-
> - <bud...@isp.com> writes
>>w_ has taken 3 sources that say plug-in suppressors are effective and
>>tried to make them say the opposite.
> Which is his usual modus operandi.
Oh yes. Next he will start accusing all who oppose him of trying
to cover up their mistakes...
Arno
w_tom
> The two possible types of bipolar transistors are PNP and NPN.
> You seem not to know what these terms mean.
That transistor is PNP. Arno demonstrates no comprehension of the
many reasons why a PNP transistor is located there.
Of course, it is irrelevant to the OPs question and to the answer
provided. Demonstrated by Arno is that those so in denial also don't
even know standard circuit designs; but somehow know why a modem is
damaged.
Modems are typically damaged by surges that enter via a most common
incoming source - AC electric. Surge is outgoing to earth ground on
phone line because phone lines have a properly earthed protector,
installed free by the telco. PNP transistor is in that path. Most
common solution to modem and broadband damage is to complete the
protection system. Also install and earth a 'whole house' protector
on AC electric (and verify cable company has properly earthed their
cable).
Those who learn and install surge protection know THE most critical
component of a protection 'system': single point earth ground.
Curious. Franklin even demonstrated that in 1752. And yet many deny
well proven science having been educated by boxes on retail store
shelves.
No earth ground means no effective protection. Or as demosntrated
by page 42 Figure 8 in Bud's posts - the plug-in protector may earth a
surge, 8000 volts destructively, through TVs. Protection inside the
TV overwhelmed by 8000 volts because a plug-in protector was too close
to electronics and too far from earth ground.
w_tom
>> View page 42 Figure 8. Protector is too far from earth ground and
>> too close to electronics. Therefore 8000 volts punches through and
>> destroys TV. Bud claims that earthing is not necessary. But as
>> figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even destroy
>> the TV.
>
> [The diagram shows a surge on the CATV cable and 2 TVs, TV1 has a plug-
> in suppressor.]
> For those with minimal reading and thinking ability, the text says "to
> protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required".
And one for each smoke detector. And one for the furnace. And one
for each clock radio. And one for the alarm system. And one for every
telephone appliance. Well having spend $3000+ - and still a kid with
an Xbox can completely compromise the protection. Bud, who follows me
everywhere, says you must teach your kid how not to connect his Xbox
to a TV since that also can compromise the protector.
Instead we install and earth one 'whole house' protector. A surge
that does not enter the building will not put 8000 volts through that
TV. A protector that does not require the kid to become an engineer
when connecting his Xbox to a TV.
Responsible manufacturers instead provide effective solutions.
Products from GE, Siemens, Square D, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer,
Leviton and other responsible manufacturers are found in Lowes, Home
Depot, and electrical supply houses. Bud will lie incessantly in
fear. He will deny that some of these sufficiently sized products can
be obtained in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. He fears you
might discover how much less expensive the effective solution is.
Bud will also say anything so that these current technology
realities are also ignored:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
No earth ground means no effective protection. One 'whole house'
protector earthed where utilities enter the building (service
entrance) means even a kid with an Xbox need not be trained as an
engineer. We call that protection that was installed even 100 years
ago - we call it less expensive, simpler, and effective. And it does
not enrich Bud who fears you understand why the plug-in protector
damages a TV on Page 42 Figure 8.
Arno Wagner
> On Apr 3, 5:04 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> The two possible types of bipolar transistors are PNP and NPN.
>> You seem not to know what these terms mean.
> That transistor is PNP. Arno demonstrates no comprehension of the
> many reasons why a PNP transistor is located there.
Hehe, as there are no such reasons. In fact the ''standard design''
for a relais driver uses an NPN low-side driver for the reason that
it is cheaper and works better. As I said before. But obviously
you have no idea what I am talkling about. Funny, a simple relais
driver is usually something you do very early when learing
electronics.
Arno
Bud--
> He will deny that some of these sufficiently sized products can
> be obtained in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.
In a thread a few days ago 2 people looked at internet sites and found:
Lowes had NO ‘whole house’ suppressors.
Home Depot had no ‘whole house’ suppressors near $50. The 2 suppressors
available had no specs available from Home Depot or the manufacturer.
Sufficiently sized? No specs.
It is a lie to say these devices are available for $50 unless you can
provide a link to a source.
> Bud will also say anything so that these current technology
> realities are also ignored:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
> http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
"some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised
US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as
a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998. But
w_ can't read.
It is a lie to say these picutres are "current technology reaalities".
>
> No earth ground means no effective protection.
And the required religious mantra.
The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_
can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
How come people in this newsgroup don't seem to like you w_?
--
bud--
Timothy Daniels
> In a thread a few days ago 2 people looked at internet sites and found:
> Lowes had NO ‘whole house’ suppressors.
> Home Depot had no ‘whole house’ suppressors near $50. The 2
> suppressors available had no specs available from Home Depot or
> the manufacturer. Sufficiently sized? No specs.
They looked in the wrong places. They should have looked under
"Building Demolition" for whole house suppressors.
> It is a lie to say these devices are available for $50 unless you can provide
> a link to a source.
>
> [.........]
> There are 98,615,938 web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
> and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
> NOT effective.
<LOL>
I think w_ ignores scale. He thinks in terms of nearby lightning
strikes, but surges and spikes come in all sizes and they originate
inside the house as well as outside, and something scaled large
enough to withstand and re-direct a lightning bolt won't necessarily
handle a bad fluorescent ballast or sparky motor in a refrigerator or
an air conditioner. I think plug-in strips, etc. are good for the small
stuff and sufficient if you live in a low building among tall buildings.
If you live in central Florida, you ought to also think about the big
stuff.
*TimDaniels*
Mike Tomlinson
<remove....@isp.com> writes
> But
>w_ can't read.
Oh, w_tithead can read, but he's *very* selective about what he chooses
to comprehend. He's even more selective in his quoting, using it to
twist and distort the original meaning, as you've already found in this
thread.
Mike Tomlinson
<TDan...@NoSpamDot.com> writes
>I think plug-in strips, etc. are good for the small
>stuff and sufficient if you live in a low building among tall buildings.
>If you live in central Florida, you ought to also think about the big
>stuff.
I agree. That's taking a sensible and pragmatic view of surge
protection: assessing the location, the electrical installation, the
risk and taking appropriate precautions. Unlike w_'s "one size fits
all" panacea. And he still hasn't told us for which manufacturer he
sells whole-house surge protectors.
w_tom
> I think w_ ignores scale. He thinks in terms of nearby lightning
> strikes, but surges and spikes come in all sizes and they originate
> inside the house as well as outside, and something scaled large
> enough to withstand and re-direct a lightning bolt won't necessarily
> handle a bad fluorescent ballast or sparky motor in a refrigerator or
> an air conditioner. I think plug-in strips, etc. are good for the small
> stuff and sufficient if you live in a low building among tall buildings.
If thinking on a small scale, then use pathetic power strip
protectors - and pay many times more money. Those who think on all
scales - who want real world protection - ie commercial radio and TV
stations, emergency response centers, etc - don't use ineffective plug-
in protectors. They install protection for direct lightning strikes.
Since protection must be more reliable, how do they enhance
protection? Enlarge and improve earth ground. Why? Earthing ground
is the protection. A plug-in protector is ineffective. They need real
world protection: a 'whole house' type protector connected short to
earthing. That is the 'big scale' solution even installed in Orange
County after thunderstorms caused electronics damage:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
One bad fluorescent ballast causes electronics damage all over the
house. Smoke detectors and furnace controls are destroyed. Oh. They
are not? Why not? Where is the plug-in protector? Transients from a
sparky motor in a refrigerator, et al made completely irrelevant by
protection even in dimmer switches and kitchen GFCIs. No wonder a
bad ballast does not damage every digital clock. Even digital clocks
contain protection from such trivial transients.
Why do household appliances create destructive surges? Because plug-
in manufacturers desperately need mythical problems to justify their
product.
Nearby lightning strikes are but a secondary concern. The big
picture: worry about direct lightning strikes to overhead utility
wires. That is a direct lightning strike to household appliances.
What do the informed install? One 'whole house' protector - just like
commercial radio stations and emergency response centers - with proper
earthing. Same protector also makes a sparky motor and bad
fluorescent ballast also irrelevant. Internal protection already does
what a plug-in protector might do. One 'whole house' protector
(properly earthed) means transients do not overwhelm protection inside
appliances. And then a protector installed for direct lightning
strikes - one 'whole house' protector - makes those other transients
irrelevant again.
Scary pictures are exactly what a plug-in promoter denies to hype
more ineffective but so profitable protectors. These scary pictures
are standard technology plug-in protectors - just another problem:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
What happens when a direct lightning strike arrives at a plug-in
protector? Bud's citation page 42 Figure 8 shows a failure created by
plug-in protectors. That failure when a typically 'big picture
problem' occurs. Plug-in protector may earth a direct lightning
strike 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Bud's
reply? Buy $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protectors for everything. What
does he forget to mention? Install one 'whole house' protector -
don't waste money on plug-in protectors - and don't create damage on
page 42 Figure 8.
How do we protect from the big one - how to see the big picture?
Same solution makes other surges irrelevant? Install one 'whole
house' protector and confirm / upgrade the earthing. Solution
manufactured by the responsible such as Intermatic, Leviton, GE,
Cutler-Hammer, Square D, and Siemens. A 'whole house' protector even
available in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.
Is Bud still denying those protectors are available even at less
than $50? Maybe he finally went to Lowes to see for himself what a
real protector looks like?
chrisv
> Is Bud still denying those protectors are available even at less
>than $50? Maybe he finally went to Lowes to see for himself what a
>real protector looks like?
Why don't you point one out for us? You've been asked repeatedly.
Folkert Rienstra
>
> > > w_ has taken 3 sources that say plug-in suppressors are effective and
> > > tried to make them say the opposite.
>
> > Which is his usual modus operandi.
> Oh yes.
> Next he will start accusing all who oppose him of trying to cover up their mistakes...
Which, as we all know, is a completely alien concept to you, isn't that right, babblebot?
>
> Arno
Bud--
>
> Scary pictures are exactly what a plug-in promoter denies to hype
> more ineffective but so profitable protectors. These scary pictures
> are standard technology plug-in protectors - just another problem:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
> http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
Lacking any technical arguments w_ repeats the pathetic scare tactics.
>
> What happens when a direct lightning strike arrives at a plug-in
> protector? Bud's citation page 42 Figure 8 shows a failure created by
> plug-in protectors.
Already covered. No failure was created by a plug-in suppressor. The
plug-in suppressor installed at the 1st TV reduced the surge at the 2nd
TV from 10kV to 8kV. The point of the illustration for the IEEE and
everyone but w_ is that "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector
located at TV2 is required".
>
>A 'whole house' protector even
> available in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.
>
> Is Bud still denying those protectors are available even at less
> than $50? Maybe he finally went to Lowes to see for himself what a
> real protector looks like?
>
The $50 lie repeated. Incomprehensible why w_ would repeat this.
The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Both have excellent information on surges and surge protection.
And still never seen - a link to a site that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. Could it be nobody agrees with you w_? Where are
your links? And include your link for $50 ‘whole house’ suppressors.
--
bud--
w_tom
> The $50 lie repeated. Incomprehensible why w_ would repeat this.
>
> The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
> Both have excellent information on surges and surge protection.
He cannot deny those scary pictures - what happens when typically
undersized protectors are used and those protectors remain connected
too long - actually try to provide protection. Fire threat is a
problem that has existed for 20 years. Meanwhile, effective 'whole
house' protectors are properly sized to earth such surges without
damage - remain fictional after the direct lightning strike.
Problem with 'whole house' protectors? They earth surges so that
the homeowner does not even know those surges existed. Properly
sized and installed 'whole house' protector earths that surge, remain
functional, and do not create fire damage to a wall to wall rug or to
a pile of desktop papers.
Bud knows because he saw it on the web. 'Whole house' protectors
from responsible manufacturers have sold in Lowes and Home Depot for
less than $50 for years now. Bud knows that cannot be true because he
did not see it on the web. If he actually did this stuff, then he
might discover 'whole house' protectors - some selling for less than
$50. But that would harm sales of ineffective plug-in protectors.
Easier is to lie and deny.
Even Bud's own citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a plug-in protector
earthing the surge - 8000 volts destructively - via an adjacent TV.
But even IEEE Standards instead define what is necessary for
protection - earthing. Bud admits his plug-in protectors have no
earthing. Page 42 Figure 8 shows how that plug-in protector earthed,
destructively, through a TV. 8000 volts destructively.
But then another of Bud's citations also warns of what plug-in
protectors can do - besides cost tens of times more money -
> 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.
Did we also mention those plug-in protectors don't even claim to
provide protection from the typically destructive type of surge? Yes,
they claim protection from a surge that typically does not do damage.
What is necessary to protect from surges that typically do damage?
Earthing. So where are those numeric claims for protection? Bud's
protectors don't even claim such protection in its numerical specs.
Just another little fact he forgets to mention when plug-in protectors
are so profitable.
No earth ground means no effective protection. What does IEEE
states as necessary for protection? Earthing. Who should we believe -
IEEE Standards (Red Book, Emerald Book, etc) or Bud who cannot even
deny those scary pictures. Yes Bud is the troll who follows me
everywhere to promote his grossly overpriced (so profitable)
products. He will not even admit why he promotes them.
Bud--
>
> No earth ground means no effective protection.
The religious belief in earth ground - because plug-in suppressors do
not work by earthing, for w_ they cannot possibly work. But the IEEE
guide explains they primarily work by clamping.
Nothing new - the same drivel. Attempts again to take 2 sources that say
plug–in suppressors are effective and make them say the opposite.
Amazing what someone will do to protect their religious beliefs. w_
still can’t find the mythical $50 ‘whole house suppressor’ - if they
exist provide a link - why should anyone believe they exist.
And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective - except w_.
But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Anyone can read these sources.
No sources.
Distort opposing sources.
Attempt to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud--
Arno Wagner
> w_tom wrote:
>>
>> No earth ground means no effective protection.
> The religious belief in earth ground - because plug-in suppressors do
> not work by earthing, for w_ they cannot possibly work. But the IEEE
> guide explains they primarily work by clamping.
Actuyally I have a high-quality power-strip supressor and it
does both: Short to ground and short against each other. It also
includes a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor, so that if
they start to leak after several surges, the device will fail
instead of stopping to protect.
It is a good idea to short both lines against each other anyways,
because, guess what, the neutral line (N) is typically grouned
anyways! In fact in installations here, three phases are deliverd
to the house and the N line is created by connecting it to
the house grounding. So in most cases a simple non-grounded
suppressor actually shorts to ground anyways.
> Nothing new - the same drivel. Attempts again to take 2 sources that say
> plug–in suppressors are effective and make them say the opposite.
> Amazing what someone will do to protect their religious beliefs.
Hey, look at some of the religious dictatorships in the world,
e.g. Iran or Northern Korea (yes, socialism taken that far is
religion), and you can see that w_tom is by far not alone in his
disregard for reality andf facts.
> w_ still can’t find the mythical $50 ‘whole house suppressor’ - if they
> exist provide a link - why should anyone believe they exist.
> And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
> That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors
> are NOT effective - except w_.
> But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
> Anyone can read these sources.
IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
reasoning with their recomendations.
> No sources.
> Distort opposing sources.
> Attempt to discredit opponents.
Does not answer counterarguments.
> w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
Yes, definitely. One of these people that make the world a
worse place.
Arno
Bud--
> Previously Bud-- <remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>
>>w_tom wrote:
>
>>> No earth ground means no effective protection.
>
>>The religious belief in earth ground - because plug-in suppressors do
>>not work by earthing, for w_ they cannot possibly work. But the IEEE
>>guide explains they primarily work by clamping.
>
>
> Actuyally I have a high-quality power-strip supressor and it
> does both: Short to ground and short against each other. It also
> includes a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor, so that if
> they start to leak after several surges, the device will fail
> instead of stopping to protect.
>
> It is a good idea to short both lines against each other anyways,
> because, guess what, the neutral line (N) is typically grouned
> anyways! In fact in installations here, three phases are deliverd
> to the house and the N line is created by connecting it to
> the house grounding. So in most cases a simple non-grounded
> suppressor actually shorts to ground anyways.
The (US) UL standard (1449) requires protection from H-N, H-G, N-G. w_
is right that the impedance back to the panel is too high for really
effective earthing to occurr. But they work by clamping.
UL 1449 has required a thermal disconnect for leaking MOVs since 1998.
As noted in both guides the protected equipment may be connected across
the MOVs and be disconnected with them, or it can be connected to stay
live (and unprotected) if the MOVs are disconnected.
Hard to imagine 3-phase residential.
>
>>Nothing new - the same drivel. Attempts again to take 2 sources that say
>>plug–in suppressors are effective and make them say the opposite.
>>Amazing what someone will do to protect their religious beliefs.
>
>
> Hey, look at some of the religious dictatorships in the world,
> e.g. Iran or Northern Korea (yes, socialism taken that far is
> religion), and you can see that w_tom is by far not alone in his
> disregard for reality and facts.
I have heard w_ is a science advisor for George.
>
>>And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
>>That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors
>>are NOT effective - except w_.
>
>
>>But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
>>Anyone can read these sources.
>
>
> IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
> organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
> I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
> reasoning with their recomendations.
>
Sure would be nice to get at the IEEE treasure trove of information.
Hey, maybe you could post your membership number. :)
>
>>No sources.
>>Distort opposing sources.
>>Attempt to discredit opponents.
>
> Does not answer counterarguments.
>
>
>>w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
>
>
> Yes, definitely. One of these people that make the world a
> worse place.
>
--
bud--
Arno Wagner
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>> Previously Bud-- <remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>w_tom wrote:
>>
>>>> No earth ground means no effective protection.
>>
>>>The religious belief in earth ground - because plug-in suppressors do
>>>not work by earthing, for w_ they cannot possibly work. But the IEEE
>>>guide explains they primarily work by clamping.
>>
>>
>> Actuyally I have a high-quality power-strip supressor and it
>> does both: Short to ground and short against each other. It also
>> includes a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor, so that if
>> they start to leak after several surges, the device will fail
>> instead of stopping to protect.
>>
>> It is a good idea to short both lines against each other anyways,
>> because, guess what, the neutral line (N) is typically grouned
>> anyways! In fact in installations here, three phases are deliverd
>> to the house and the N line is created by connecting it to
>> the house grounding. So in most cases a simple non-grounded
>> suppressor actually shorts to ground anyways.
> The (US) UL standard (1449) requires protection from H-N, H-G, N-G. w_
> is right that the impedance back to the panel is too high for really
> effective earthing to occurr. But they work by clamping.
> UL 1449 has required a thermal disconnect for leaking MOVs since 1998.
Sensible. Don't know whether VDE/SVE/... requires them.
> As noted in both guides the protected equipment may be connected across
> the MOVs and be disconnected with them, or it can be connected to stay
> live (and unprotected) if the MOVs are disconnected.
> Hard to imagine 3-phase residential.
Well, this is Europe. Pretty standard here. Also standard is
that the transformers are larger ones for a series of houses.
>>>Nothing new - the same drivel. Attempts again to take 2 sources that say
>>>plug–in suppressors are effective and make them say the opposite.
>>>Amazing what someone will do to protect their religious beliefs.
>>
>>
>> Hey, look at some of the religious dictatorships in the world,
>> e.g. Iran or Northern Korea (yes, socialism taken that far is
>> religion), and you can see that w_tom is by far not alone in his
>> disregard for reality and facts.
> I have heard w_ is a science advisor for George.
Hehe.
>>
>>>And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
>>>That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors
>>>are NOT effective - except w_.
>>
>>
>>>But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
>>>Anyone can read these sources.
>>
>>
>> IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
>> organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
>> I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
>> reasoning with their recomendations.
>>
> Sure would be nice to get at the IEEE treasure trove of information.
> Hey, maybe you could post your membership number. :)
Sorry, the I found the digital library option too expensive. ;-)
Arno
w_tom
> The (US) UL standard (1449) requires protection from H-N, H-G, N-G.
> w_ is right that the impedance back to the panel is too high for really
> effective earthing to occurr. But they work by clamping.
>
> UL 1449 has required a thermal disconnect for leaking MOVs since 1998.
> As noted in both guides the protected equipment may be connected across
> the MOVs and be disconnected with them, or it can be connected to stay
> live (and unprotected) if the MOVs are disconnected.
UL1449 is a safety standard; says nothing about electronics
protection. A power strip protector can fail during UL testing and
still obtain UL 1449 approval. Underwriters Laboratories does not
care if a protector stops providing protection - if its fuse
disconnects protector parts. UL 1449 only cares about things that
might threaten human life.
How can one obtain UL 1449 approval? MOVs connect to AC mains via a
tiny fuse. Wrap that fuse with the MOV so that heat causes that fuse
to blow faster. Now the grossly undersized protector will trip a fuse
long before too much heat creates explosive vaporizations. Fuse is so
tiny as to not power or disconnect appliance.
MOV disconnects from surges faster - less transistor safety but more
human safety. Since power strip protectors are not effective for
transistor safety, then disconnecting an MOV faster actually promotes
sales among the naive (see 6 paragraphs down).
Undersized protectors that meet UL 1449 simply disconnect protection
faster; leaving protection inside the appliance to protect that
appliance. MOVs can disconnect during UL 1449 testing - stop providing
any transistor protection - and still the power strip gets a UL 1449
approval sticker.
Human knows MOVs disconnected because a power strip's light says
"failure". Human then assumes that power strip provided protection.
Reality - power strip disconnected from a surge as fast as possible;
leaving the appliance to fend for itself. That same fuse is described
by Arno as "a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor". That fuse
disconnects MOVs ASAP while leaving appliance connected to surges.
That is called protection?
Sometimes that UL 1449 protector does not disconnect the MOVs fast
enough. Again the scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
What does that light report? This picture shows a protector saying it
is OK even when MOVs are removed:
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
No MOVs inside a power strip and still that light says it is OK?
Yes, because MOVs were removed manually; did not fail by being too
undersized and blowing that fuse.
UL 1449 said nothing about electronics protection. But to promote
myths, some will intentionally confuse UL 1449 with claims of
protection. Some will even claim the protector meets C62.41 which is
only testing waveforms. Some will claim UL 1449 defines protection.
Reality: UL 1449 is about human safety. To meet UL 1449, grossly
undersized power strip protectors may provide even less transistor
safety. It may disconnect MOVs during surges too small to overwhelm
protection already inside household electronics. Disconnecting faster
- providing less transistor protection - even promotes ineffective
protectors to the naive.
In an April 1990 article, Martzloff defined two types of surges.
" ... transients with low amplitudes (less than 1000 volts) are
buffered by the computers' power supply but might still couple into
circuits and cause glitches". These surges may be sufficient to blow
that fuse; disconnect MOVs inside the grossly undersized power strip.
A naive human then assumes that "my protector has sacrificed itself to
protect my computer". But as Martzloff notes, protection already
inside appliances provided the protection.
Same surge struck appliance and power strip simultaneously. Surge
could not overwhelm 1000 volt protection inside appliances. Some
computers define that internal protection at 2000 volts. But grossly
undersized power strip also had to meet UL 1449 human safety
requirements - disconnected to protect itself - not the computer.
Effective protectors must earth direct lightning strikes and still
remain functional. Responsible manufacturers provide a 'whole house'
protector that clamps (shunts) surges to earth. A product even
available in Lowes and Home Depot for under $50. UL1449 says nothing
about transistor protection. UL1449 is about human safety because
those scary pictures - threats to human life - are most dangerous in
power strip protectors.
Those with IEEE access and a few decades of engineering design
experience also know that UL approval is about human safety - does not
define transistor safety.
w_tom
> IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
> organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
> I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
> reasoning with their recomendations.
Which is why Bud must post selectively from those publications. IEEE
recommendations are not found in papers. IEEE recommendations are in
Standards. IEEE Standards are quite specific what is required for
protectcion.
IEEE Red Book (Standard 141):
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
> process of interception of lightning produced surges,
> diverting them to ground, and by altering their
> associated wave shapes.
IEEE Green Book (Standard 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning
Protection Grounding' :
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
> diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
> not result in damage.
IEEE Emerald Book (Standard 1100) entitled "Powering and Grounding
Sensitive Electronic Equipment":
> It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
> bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
> equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
> system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...
> Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement may
> result in hazardous potential being developed between the
> telephone (data) equipment and other grounded items that
> personnel may be near or might simultaneously contact.
So where is this required earthing in a plug-in protector?
Ignored? Forgotten? Or are IEEE Standards lying? Those power strip
protector manufacturers would have you believe earthing is not
required for protection. IOW they must pervert what the IEEE demands
for protection.
Martzloff in his IEEE paper also notes that a 'whole house'
protector is necessary to protect plug-in protectors:
> For large current values such as those associated with "lightning
> remnants", i.e. surge entering the house when a lightning stroke
> occurs near the house, one can expect currents in the order of
> 1000 to 2000 A. These would produce a voltage of 800 to 1000 V
> across the varistor. However, as we will see, the presence of an
> HLP device at the service box, ahead of the varistor, will limit the
> current flowing toward the varistor to a lower value, by diverting the
> current through the HLP ...
HLP - Home Lightning Protector
Even 'whole house' protectors sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less
than $50 are rated at about 50,000 amps making a 2000 A surge
trivial. But a 2000 A surge can cause plug-in protector damage?
Look at voltage on a varistor when those 1000 A surges occur - and no
HLP? Viewing any varistor datasheet: 800 and 1000 volt is where
performance curves end and where MOV vaporization (destruction)
begins. So what happens to plug-in protectors when a 10,000 A surge
occurs - if only 1000 A surges are so destructive to plug-in
protectors? Well that is why plug-in protector thermal fuses
disconnect MOV protector so fast - leaving appliance to fend for
itself.
We install a 'whole house' protector because plug-in protectors are
not sufficient even for 1000 A surges? 'Whole house' protector rates
at 50,000 amps and with better earthing means 1000 volt internal
appliance protection is not overwhelmed.
As his IEEE paper notes, a plug-in protector can be overwhelmed even
with 1000 A and 2000 A surges. Install a 'whole house' protector for
50,000 A - even as low as $50 in Lowes or Home Depot - and upgrade the
earthing. Then grossly undersized plug-in protectors will be
protected. Imagine that? Pay $100 for a power strip protector from
Circuit City ... and need a $50 'whole house' protector from Lowes to
protect it ... and everything else in the building.
One of us has learned this stuff from IEEE, manufacturer
datasheets, and from experience many decades ago. Protection is
defined by earth ground - not by some 'magic box' promoted by Bud.
IEEE Standards are quite blunt about it. Protection is provided by
earth ground.
Arno Wagner
Interesting thing, though. My supressor strip is rated at 15'000A.
Maybe your base asumptions are wrong?
Arno
w_tom
> Interesting thing, though. My suppressor strip is rated at 15'000A.
> Maybe your base asumptions are wrong?
So you let them spin another half truth. Where are those currents
conducted? 3000 amps from one phone line to another. 3000 amps from
one phone line to safety ground. 3000 amps from hot to neutral. 3000
amps from neutral to safety ground. 3000 amps from that wire to the
other wire. Protector only conducts 3000 A in one channel and you
think it is 15,000 A? Yes, if not asking embarrassing questions.
Instead, Martzloff discusses the one path that does conduct the
entire surge. His conclusion is demonstrated by scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
A properly sized and earthed 'whole house' protector is necessary to
protect plug-in protectors and other household appliances.
It was rated for 15,000 amps by playing number games to inflate the
number.
Meanwhile, Bud's own citations define what is essential to effective
protection:
> 2.3.1 Grounding
> An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical for the successful
> operation of an SPD. High surge currents impinging on a power
> distribution system having a relatively high grounding resistance can
> create enormous ground potential rises, resulting in damage. Therefore,
> an evaluation of the service entrance grounding system at the time of
> the SPD installation is very important. At the very least, the grounding
> system should be inspected to see that it meets the National Electric
> Code requirements in the United States or the Canadian Electric Code
> requirements in Canada.
> 2.3.2 Lead Length
> To achieve optimum overvoltage protection, the connecting leads
> between the SPDs and the panel or protected equipment should be as
> short as possible and without sharp 90-degree bends. ...
What is required and essential to effective protection? Earthing
including that short connection. What does Martzloff define as
necessary for protecting plug-in protectors from 'scary pictures'?
Earthing that must be as short as possible ('less than 10 feet') and
even without 90 degree wire bends.
Arno Wagner
> On Apr 8, 2:51 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Interesting thing, though. My suppressor strip is rated at 15'000A.
>> Maybe your base asumptions are wrong?
> So you let them spin another half truth. Where are those currents
> conducted? 3000 amps from one phone line to another. 3000 amps from
> one phone line to safety ground. 3000 amps from hot to neutral. 3000
> amps from neutral to safety ground. 3000 amps from that wire to the
> other wire. Protector only conducts 3000 A in one channel and you
> think it is 15,000 A?
Don't try to worm your way out of this. My supressor is rated at
15'000A on every supressed path, of which there are three.
Arno
Bud--
> On Apr 7, 2:43 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
>>organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
>>I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
>>reasoning with their recomendations.
>
>
> Which is why Bud must post selectively from those publications. IEEE
> recommendations are not found in papers. IEEE recommendations are in
> Standards. IEEE Standards are quite specific what is required for
> protectcion.
> IEEE Red Book (Standard 141):
> Protection Grounding' :
> Sensitive Electronic Equipment":
When something challenges w_'s religious belief in earthing it has to be
misinterpreted or discredited.
First IEEE *guide* is misrepresented as a *technical paper*. And you
have to be stupid to think the IEEE would release a guide to the general
public that is not consistent with the IEEE color books
Then he tries to discredit the guide as not being a "standard". From
the guide:
"The information contained in IEEE Press/Standards Information Network
publications is reviewed and evaluated by peer reviewers of relevant
IEEE Technical Societies, Standards Committees and/or Working Groups,
and/or relevant technical organizations. The authors addressed all of
the reviewers' comments to the satisfaction of both the IEEE Standards
Information Network and those who served as peer reviewers for this
document.
"The quality of the presentation of information contained in this
publication reflects not only the obvious efforts of the authors, but
also the work of these peer reviewers."
Contrary to w_'s misrepresentation, the guide represents the thinking of
the IEEE.
And if w_ was not blinded by his religious belief in earthing he would
find the Emerald book - an IEEE standard - recognizes plug-in
suppressors as an effective protection device.
>
> So where is this required earthing in a plug-in protector?
> Ignored? Forgotten? Or are IEEE Standards lying? Those power strip
> protector manufacturers would have you believe earthing is not
> required for protection. IOW they must pervert what the IEEE demands
> for protection.
The requires statement of religious belief in earthing.
As explained in the *IEEE* guide, for anyone who can read and think,
plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires
(power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing.
>
> Martzloff in his IEEE paper also notes that a 'whole house'
> protector is necessary to protect plug-in protectors:
No link. No title. History of misrepresentation by w_.
Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that says plug-in suppressors are effective.
> Protection is
> defined by earth ground - not by some 'magic box' promoted by Bud.
> IEEE Standards are quite blunt about it. Protection is provided by
> earth ground.
>
Statement of religious belief in earthing #2.
The IEEE guide is quite blunt about it - plug-in suppressors are effective.
And I promote accurate information - it can be found in the IEEE and/or
NIST guides. Use plug-in suppressors or don't - but base the decision on
accurate information.
As always, no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective.
But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Bizarre claim: plug-in surge suppressors don’t work
No sources.
Distort or attempt to discredit opposing sources.
Attempt to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud--
w_tom
> Don't try to worm your way out of this. My supressor is rated at
> 15'000A on every supressed path, of which there are three.
The bank has $1 million in the vault. Your account is in that
bank. Therefore you have $1 million in your account? Same logic
applies to that 15,000 A; which is far from reality and explains
those scary pictures. Your suppressor is not rated for 15,000 A on
every path. Arno's post demonstrates why plug-in protectors are so
easily promoted to those who want to believe rather than learn.
Clearly faith is more important than a grasp of reality. A
responsible consumer instead asks embarrassing questions. Questions
such as why your telco does not use that ineffective protector.
Telcos need and use effective protection.
A protector is rated at 15,000 amps when one assumes rather than
learns; did not even break one open or learn from MOV manufacturer
datasheets. Above IEEE paper discusses earthing a 'whole house'
protector to also protect plug-in protectors. 'Scary pictures' also
demonstrate why earthing is necessary and essential.
w_tom
> w_tom wrote:
>> IEEE Standards are quite specific what is required for
>> protectcion.
>> IEEE Red Book (Standard 141):
>> IEEE Green Book (Standard 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning
>> Protection Grounding' :
>> IEEE Emerald Book (Standard 1100) entitled "Powering and Grounding
>> Sensitive Electronic Equipment":
>
> <etc>
>
> When something challenges w_'s religious belief in earthing it has to be
> misinterpreted or discredited.
IEEE Standards repeatedly demand earthing for proteciton. Bud
insists earthing is not necessary. Bud so fears reality as to not even
repost exact quotes from IEEE Standards that define protection. Even
Bud's own citations Page 42 Figure 8 shows a plug-in protector - with
all but no earth ground - causing 8000 volts damage the to TV. Bud
does not dispute this. He simply ignores that damage hoping that a
lurker will forget what the IEEE demands (in Standards) for protection
- earth ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. Of
course the troll will reply with more personal attacks because he
cannot even dispute what IEEE Standard demand and require for
protection. Admission would only confirm what his own citation Page
42 Figure 8 shows: a plug-in protector destroying a TV because it is
too close to the TV and too far from earth ground.
Bud also hopes you forget who he promotes for: products without
earthing but are so grossly profitable. According to Bud, the IEEE is
a religous organization. So who is the IEEE Pope?
Arno Wagner
> On Apr 9, 11:31 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Don't try to worm your way out of this. My supressor is rated at
>> 15'000A on every supressed path, of which there are three.
> The bank has $1 million in the vault. Your account is in that
> bank. Therefore you have $1 million in your account? Same logic
> applies to that 15,000 A; which is far from reality and explains
> those scary pictures. Your suppressor is not rated for 15,000 A on
> every path. Arno's post demonstrates why plug-in protectors are so
> easily promoted to those who want to believe rather than learn.
Oh but it is. It uses 15'000A rated MOV resistors. I opened it and
checked to make sure the claim on the box was valid. Epcos
B72220Q251K101 (not sure about the exact voltage rating, might
have been the 275V variant as well).
> Clearly faith is more important than a grasp of reality. A
> responsible consumer instead asks embarrassing questions. Questions
> such as why your telco does not use that ineffective protector.
> Telcos need and use effective protection.
> A protector is rated at 15,000 amps when one assumes rather than
> learns; did not even break one open or learn from MOV manufacturer
> datasheets.
Hehe. No, I did. Both. Why do you assume I did not? Because your
argument falls flat on its face if I did?
Arno
Mike Tomlinson
<w_t...@usa.net> writes
[the usual idiotic repetitive lies and FUD from w_tom]
> How can one obtain UL 1449 approval? MOVs connect to AC mains via a
>tiny fuse. Wrap that fuse with the MOV so that heat causes that fuse
>to blow faster.
Correct. The thermal fuse is designed to disconnect power to the MOV
when the MOV has shunted many surges and reached the end of its useful
working life. When that happens, it begins to heat up and the fuse will
open to protect the user. A simple and effective protective measure
which was clearly not employed in the cheap surge protectors in one of
the links to "scary pictures" you keep posting to try and justify your
indefensible position.
> Now the grossly undersized
You have never provided any credible evidence to justify "grossly
undersized". Arno has posted details to show that his surge protector
has the ability to clamp 15,000A per suppressed path. You, of course,
tried unsuccessfully to distort that by claiming it was in fact only
3,000A.
> protector will trip a fuse
>long before too much heat creates explosive vaporizations. Fuse is so
>tiny as to not power or disconnect appliance.
You expose your chronic lack of understanding yet again. The thermal
fuse on the MOV is a safety measure and has no involvement with the
supply of power to the appliance. It is there solely to disconnect the
MOV if it overheats. Try taking some classes in reading comprehension.
> Human knows MOVs disconnected because a power strip's light says
>"failure". Human then assumes that power strip provided protection.
It did, until the thermal fuse performed its job and disconnected the
worn out MOV.
>Reality - power strip disconnected from a surge as fast as possible;
>leaving the appliance to fend for itself.
Correction: the power strip, having done its job and conducted away many
surges, thus protecting the appliances connected to it, has now reached
the end of its working life. A useful "Failure" light informs the user
that the strip's protective features have worn out and it is now time to
replace it.
The power strip has therefore performed the job for which it was
designed, and you have a problem with that?
> That same fuse is described
>by Arno as "a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor". That fuse
>disconnects MOVs ASAP while leaving appliance connected to surges.
>That is called protection?
More twisting of other people's postings. Yes, that is called
protection. The strip did the job it was designed to do.
>Again the scary pictures:
The use of the word "scary" shows your real agenda. Unable to provide
any technical justification for your position, you resort to FUD (fear,
uncertainty and doubt), to try and frighten readers into your way of
thinking. A classic high-pressure sales tactic.
>remain functional. Responsible manufacturers provide a 'whole house'
>protector that clamps (shunts) surges to earth. A product even
>available in Lowes and Home Depot for under $50.
That claim yet again, which you've been asked to substantiate by several
people, but persistently fail to do. If you had the true conviction of
your beliefs, you would post using your real name and declare your
interest, i.e. which manufacturer's products you sell.
> UL1449 says nothing
>about transistor protection. UL1449 is about human safety because
>those scary pictures - threats to human life - are most dangerous in
Woooooo!!! Scaaaaarrry! *waves hands around while pulling a face*
That about sums up the nature of your postings. Do you ever read what
you write? Your posting style is messianic, repetitive, didactic,
misleading, unauthoritative, and chronically inept.
As a cursory Google Groups search will show, you pop up in various
groups from time to time when the subject of surge protection crops up
and have done so for many years. Each time, your arguments are debunked
by different people, yet you persist. That you're always right and
everyone else wrong speaks volumes about you.
Arno Wagner
> [the usual idiotic repetitive lies and FUD from w_tom]
>> How can one obtain UL 1449 approval? MOVs connect to AC mains via a
>>tiny fuse. Wrap that fuse with the MOV so that heat causes that fuse
>>to blow faster.
> Correct. The thermal fuse is designed to disconnect power to the MOV
> when the MOV has shunted many surges and reached the end of its useful
> working life. When that happens, it begins to heat up and the fuse will
> open to protect the user. A simple and effective protective measure
> which was clearly not employed in the cheap surge protectors in one of
> the links to "scary pictures" you keep posting to try and justify your
> indefensible position.
Confusion tactics. A look at a MOV datasheed will show that they have
a repeatable surge rating and an one-time rating (after which the MOV
still protects, but may heat up to self-destruction even with the normal
operating voltage). A MOV not protected with a thermal fuse is actually
a fire-hazard.
>> Now the grossly undersized
> You have never provided any credible evidence to justify "grossly
> undersized". Arno has posted details to show that his surge protector
> has the ability to clamp 15,000A per suppressed path. You, of course,
> tried unsuccessfully to distort that by claiming it was in fact only
> 3,000A.
And I have now posted the exact MOV type in my supressor for everybody
that wants so look up the datasheet themselves. BTW, Epcos also has
a lot of design information for MOVs on the web.
>> protector will trip a fuse
>>long before too much heat creates explosive vaporizations. Fuse is so
>>tiny as to not power or disconnect appliance.
> You expose your chronic lack of understanding yet again. The thermal
> fuse on the MOV is a safety measure and has no involvement with the
> supply of power to the appliance. It is there solely to disconnect the
> MOV if it overheats. Try taking some classes in reading comprehension.
Or in electronics....
>> Human knows MOVs disconnected because a power strip's light says
>>"failure". Human then assumes that power strip provided protection.
> It did, until the thermal fuse performed its job and disconnected the
> worn out MOV.
>>Reality - power strip disconnected from a surge as fast as possible;
>>leaving the appliance to fend for itself.
> Correction: the power strip, having done its job and conducted away many
> surges, thus protecting the appliances connected to it, has now reached
> the end of its working life. A useful "Failure" light informs the user
> that the strip's protective features have worn out and it is now time to
> replace it.
Or, in my case, I can contact the manufaturer and get a replacement MOV
module at significantly lower cost than a new power-strip.
> The power strip has therefore performed the job for which it was
> designed, and you have a problem with that?
>> That same fuse is described
>>by Arno as "a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor". That fuse
>>disconnects MOVs ASAP while leaving appliance connected to surges.
>>That is called protection?
> More twisting of other people's postings. Yes, that is called
> protection. The strip did the job it was designed to do.
Actually the thermal fuses disconnect the MOVs and outlets from
power and surges, i.e. the connected devices are perfectly safe.
Anything else would be plain stupid design. And, yes, I have a
circuit diagram in the documentation that came with the
power strip.
>>Again the scary pictures:
> The use of the word "scary" shows your real agenda. Unable to provide
> any technical justification for your position, you resort to FUD (fear,
> uncertainty and doubt), to try and frighten readers into your way of
> thinking. A classic high-pressure sales tactic.
Indeed.
>>remain functional. Responsible manufacturers provide a 'whole house'
>>protector that clamps (shunts) surges to earth. A product even
>>available in Lowes and Home Depot for under $50.
> That claim yet again, which you've been asked to substantiate by several
> people, but persistently fail to do. If you had the true conviction of
> your beliefs, you would post using your real name and declare your
> interest, i.e. which manufacturer's products you sell.
Well, I found some 1-phase and 3-phase protectors intended to
be mounted permanently. 125A rated with 20/40kA surge rating.
A bit more expensive, about 100EUR/USD for the 1-phase version
and about 200EUR/USD for the 3-phase version. And definietly not
sold to the general public. You have to be a licensed electrician
to install these.
>> UL1449 says nothing
>>about transistor protection. UL1449 is about human safety because
>>those scary pictures - threats to human life - are most dangerous in
> Woooooo!!! Scaaaaarrry! *waves hands around while pulling a face*
> That about sums up the nature of your postings. Do you ever read what
> you write? Your posting style is messianic, repetitive, didactic,
> misleading, unauthoritative, and chronically inept.
''I say it three times and that makes it truth, because I am the man''
would be my summary.
> As a cursory Google Groups search will show, you pop up in various
> groups from time to time when the subject of surge protection crops up
> and have done so for many years. Each time, your arguments are debunked
> by different people, yet you persist. That you're always right and
> everyone else wrong speaks volumes about you.
Seems to be a personal crusade of his. A real pity that he does
not understand the subject matter.
Arno
Bud--
> On Apr 9, 11:37 am, Bud-- <remove.BudN...@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>>When something challenges w_'s religious belief in earthing it has to be
>>misinterpreted or discredited.
>
>
> IEEE Standards repeatedly demand earthing for proteciton. Bud
> insists earthing is not necessary.
Bullcrap. I repeat what the IEEE guide says - plug-in suppressors work
primarily by clamping, not earthing. Earthing occurrs elsewhere.
> No earth ground means no effective protection.
The required religious mantra.
> Of
> course the troll will reply with more personal attacks
> Bud also hopes you forget who he promotes for: products without
> earthing but are so grossly profitable.
Quite correct about the troll. Lacking any technical arguments w_
regularly calls me a manufacturers pawn.
And still no links that say plug-in suppressors are effective. Where are
your links w_? Have you noticed no one here believes you? Post your
links and convince everyone. Until then - pathetic junk science from a
religious fanatic.
--
bud--
w_tom
> The thermal fuse is designed to disconnect power to the MOV when
> the MOV has shunted many surges and reached the end of its useful
> working life. When that happens, it begins to heat up and the fuse will
> open to protect the user.
Mike Tomlinson is posting without learning from MOV manufacturer
datasheets. When does an MOV working life end? When it *degrades*.
MOV voltage changes 10%. MOV must not short circuit or
catastrophically explode as Mike Tomlinson naively promotes.
Unacceptable catastrophic failure causes excessive temperature; blows
a safety fuse. MOVs degrades when properly sized; must not
catastrophically fail, blow that fuse, trigger a failure indicator
lamp.
That fuse can blow during UL1449 testing - protector circuit
disconnects - and still get UL 1449 approval. Why? UL's only
concern: it does not threaten human life; does not create a fire.
But it also did not provide effective protection.
Mike Tomlinson was provided manufacturer information on 7 Mar 2007.
He ignored manufacturer datasheets to again post his myths. Tomlinson
knows from observation of grossly undersized plug-in protectors. Were
those manufacturer datasheets too complex for Mike? Reposted is what
Mike Tomlinson ignored to again repost myths.
Manufacturer datasheet for life expectancy is graphs on page 5:
http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/CA.pdf
A 330 joule protector (V251CA32) will shunt a ten thousand 300 amp
surges. A 370 joule MOV is rated for 60,000 surges. And the 880 joule
MOV has a life expectancy of 100,000. Those curves end when current
during one surge is excessive; beyond what the manufacturer intended;
long before an MOV should fail; short; vaporize; cause that indicator
light to report a defect. Protectors that are properly sized shunt
many surges, remain functional, and do not trip that failure light.
Voltage that defines "degraded" is quoted from that datasheet:
> If pulse ratings are exceeded, a shift of VN(DC) (at specified
> current) of more than ±10% could result.
What happens when an MOV has degraded?
> ... does not prevent the device from continuing to function, ...
What happens when a light indicates failure? Device no longer
functions; "absolute maximum ratings" were exceeded. Quote is
directly from that manufacturer datasheet. When has a protector
degraded? When its voltage change exceeds 10%; it does not vaporize
or explode.
Another manufacturer that also bluntly contradicts Mike Tomlinson:
> The change of Vb shall be measured after the impulse
> listed below is applied 10,000 times continuously with
> the interval of ten seconds at room temperature.
Some myth purveyors claim a protector is good for only one surge.
Somehow "it sacrificed itself to save my computer." Classic myth.
Some plug-in protectors are intentionally undersized so that a first
surge causes failure; triggers that indicator light. Indicator light
then gets the naive to buy and promote more grossly undersized and
grossly overpriced protectors. Mike Tomlinson promotes that myth even
after manufacturer data sheets were provided on 7 Mar 2007. He
completely ignored manufacturer datasheets to promote catastrophic
failure as normal or acceptable.
Indicator light simply reports when the protector was so grossly
undersized as to operate beyond what a manufacturer intended. So far
outside that acceptable range that a fuse had to blow to protect
humans. Protection inside the adjacent appliance protected that
appliance. (When MOV fuse blows, appliance remains connected and
surged.)
From another MOV manufacturer is a description of what constitutes
MOV degradation:
> The change of Vb shall be measured after the impulse
> listed below is applied 10,000 times continuously with
> the interval of ten seconds at room temperature.
If a power strip protector is undersized, then an MOV operates
outside manufacturer ratings - catastrophically self destructs. So
dangerous is this failure mode as to require a thermal fuse. MOV
operating as the manufacturer intended only degrade - don't blow that
fuse. Notice the number of transients to measure degradation?
10,000. But grossly undersized plug-in protectors are often promoted
by the naive as "one shot protection".
MOV datasheets provide graphs that relate number of transients, size
of transients, and time of transient to its life expectancy. That
means its voltage only changed 10% - does not short circuit or
vaporize. When a plug-in protector is grossly undersized, well, UL
1449 was created to reduce the frequency of these scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
Why these scary pictures? Even with UL1449 approval, some plug-in
protectors still fail in dangerous locations such as on a rug or
adjacent to a pile of desktop papers. UL1449 says nothing about surge
protection - only attempts to minimize those scary pictures.
>From Littlefuse is their Application Note 9310
> A "failed" device is defined by a ±10% change in the nominal varistor
> voltage at the 1mA point. This does not imply a non-protecting device,
> but rather a device whose clamping voltage has been slightly altered.
If an MOV fails catastrophically - excessively hot as to blow a
thermal fuse - then it operates well outside acceptable parameters
(per manufacturer datasheets).
Fusing is to protect humans - not to protect transistors. Properly
sized MOVs only degrade with use. But catastrophic failure sells more
ineffective protector to the naive. Catastrophic failure gets people
such as Mike Tomlinson to *assume* that vaporization is normal and
acceptable. Even when provided manufacturer datasheets, Mike
Tomlinson still assumed that catastrophic failure is acceptable.
Reality from manufacturer datasheets: MOVs blow that thermal fuse
when operating well outside of spec numbers. If a thermal fuse blows
(as indicated by the indicator light), then protector was excessively
undersized - is ineffective.
Why no earth ground? Well it's not protection. Forget a dedicated
earthing wire. Forget about sufficient joules. Neither increase
profit margins nor pay for Bud. Mike Tomlinson posts despite and in
contradiction to what is in MOV manufacturer datasheets.
Mike Tomlinson
<w_t...@usa.net> writes
You're lying, twisting and distorting again w_tom. Your desperation is
palpable. You even resort to repeating my name many times - for what
purpose? I have nothing to hide and post using my real name; you don't
have the conviction of your own beliefs, otherwise you would post using
your real name and declare for whom you work as a salesman. For the
record, I have no connection to any business making or selling surge
protection: my interest is from the viewpoint of an interested end-user
with a background in computing and electronics.
> Mike Tomlinson is posting without learning from MOV manufacturer
>datasheets. When does an MOV working life end? When it *degrades*.
>MOV voltage changes 10%. MOV must not short circuit or
>catastrophically explode as Mike Tomlinson naively promotes.
You are lying, twisting and distorting again. I at no point said it was
acceptable for a surge protector to "catastrophically explode". A MOV,
when reaching the end of its life, will begin to heat up. The thermal
fuse will disconnect it from the power BEFORE it has a chance to
explode. I am perfectly capable of reading and comprehending
manufacturer's datasheets without twisting the data they provide as you
do.
You tried to pull a similar stunt by twisting one of my posts to say
that I believed it was acceptable for our site in the Canary Islands to
suffer catastrophic damage in the event of a lightning strike, when I
said no such thing. You are a liar and a charlatan, and your posts are
evasive and disingenuous, distorting what others say to suit your
argument.
>Unacceptable catastrophic failure causes excessive temperature; blows
>a safety fuse.
Wrong (yet again). The fuse will open and remove power to the MOV
before it has a chance to explode. Must you REALLY repeat everything
multiple times? It doesn't confer any more credibility on you, not that
you have any credibility anyway.
[snip crap repeated ad infinitum]
Why do you need to repeat yourself so much? It doesn't strengthen your
argument, instead it weakens it as you appear desperate to prove your
point. Saying it three times doesn't make it any more valid, not that
it was ever valid in the first place.
You must be great fun in your local bar in Pennsylvania: repeat
everything three times and expect everyone to take your word for it.
>When a plug-in protector is grossly undersized, well, UL
>1449 was created to reduce the frequency of these scary pictures:
Here we go again: wooo!!! Scary!!!! Trading on fear, uncertainty and
doubt, w_tom's stock in trade, classic high pressure sales tactics.
> Why these scary pictures?
Because you're a charlatan? None of the pictures you link to shows
thermal fuses on the MOVs. That's exactly why they failed
catastrophically. Given the age of the links you provide, the
protectors shown were very likely to have been manufactured before
UL1449 was mandatory and thus had no overheating protection. Of course,
you would rather not acknowledge that fact - you'd rather rely on FUD.
> If an MOV fails catastrophically - excessively hot as to blow a
>thermal fuse - then it operates well outside acceptable parameters
Getting hot enough to blow a thermal fuse is NOT the same as
catastrophic failure. But then you are a liar and charlatan and have no
hesitation in twisting the truth to suit your own agenda.
>Catastrophic failure gets people
>such as Mike Tomlinson to *assume* that vaporization is normal and
>acceptable.
You are a liar and have twisted the truth yet again. I never said that,
and a reading of my post immediately prior to yours will confirm this.
Please retract your statement above.
> Even when provided manufacturer datasheets, Mike
>Tomlinson still assumed that catastrophic failure is acceptable.
Liar.
> Why no earth ground?
*Yawn* - statement of religious mania ((c) Bud :) yet again.
I also note that you have once again "conveniently" ignored the
questions I and others have raised many times. Those are:
1) Please post details of a whole house surge protector available from a
well-known US DIY chain for less than $50. 2) Post using your real
name, detail your qualifications. 3) Declare for whom you work and where
your financial interest lies in promoting the devices you constantly
advocate.
And your posts are still messianic, didactic, repetitive, misleading and
unauthoritative. Not to mention boring. You have zero credibility as
anyone searching Google Groups for your posting handles, w_...@usa.net
and w_t...@usa.net, will discover for themselves.
w_tom vs. The Rest of the World: w_tom believes he is right when many
others have comprehensively refuted and disproved his lies and
distortions.
John Turco
<heavily edited, for brevity>
> > But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
> > Anyone can read these sources.
>
> IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
> organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
> I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
> reasoning with their recomendations.
<edited>
Hello, Arno:
You're an electrical engineer, eh? Folkert will never believe it! ;-)
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Arno Wagner
> <heavily edited, for brevity>
> <edited>
> Hello, Arno:
Well, I don't really care about the ravings of one specific insane
person with usenet access...
And no, I am not an EE, I have a degree in CS. Electronics is a more
of a long-standing hobby for me.
Arno
Bud+
> Previously John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Arno Wagner wrote:
> > >
> > > Previously Bud-- <remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > <heavily edited, for brevity>
>
> > > > But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
> > > > Anyone can read these sources.
> > >
> > > IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
> > > organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
> > > I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
> > > reasoning with their recomendations.
>
> > <edited>
>
> > Hello, Arno:
>
> > You're an electrical engineer, eh? Folkert will never believe it! ;-)
> Well, I don't really care
Which is why you didn't really say that here, right babblebot?
It just blurted out, uncontrolled.
> about the ravings of one specific insane person with usenet access...
Babblebot will never badmouth people, he said.
But then babblebot *is* a patholocial liar.
Will even make up an IEEE membership.
>
> And no, I am not an EE, I have a degree in CS.
> Electronics is a more of a long-standing hobby for me.
No, really?
You sure it's not the other way around?
>
> Arno
Arno Wagner
> "Arno Wagner" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:58bghqF...@mid.individual.net
>> Previously John Turco <jt...@concentric.net> wrote:
> But then babblebot *is* a patholocial liar.
> Will even make up an IEEE membership.
Funny, I am not the guy that has to impersonate others in order to
be read at all.
Arno
Timothy Daniels
> Funny, I am not the guy that has to impersonate others in order to
> be read at all.
Be careful, Arno, or there will be a Bud++ and then a Bud#
and then a Bud.NET . :-)
*TimDaniels*
Arno Wagner
Hehe :-)
Arno
Folkert Rienstra
> > > Funny, I am not the guy that has to impersonate
Impersonate babblebot? You must be 'confused'.
> > > others in order to be read at all.
. Correct, you are the guy with the immense kill file to safeguard
him from being confronted with the comments on all his stupidity.
. So then, why are you responding to Bud+ when you wouldn't have if
I had used my own name.
. And what makes you think you are not in someone else's killfile
and are read at all.
Or is hearing yourself speak already enough for you.
>
>
> > Be careful, Arno, or there will be a Bud++ and then a Bud#
> > and then a Bud.NET . :-)
>
> Hehe :-)
He was actually making you look stupid, moron babblebot.
But as usual you didn't get the clue.
Oh, I used my own name so I shut you up again, babblebot.
See sockpuppet, I push your buttons.
>
> Arno
Keith Wilby
news:1175572815.2...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 10:24 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Personal highlight: The PNP relais driver transistor. No relation to the
>> issue at hand at all.
>
> How to protect
> modem, broadband, or even cable? Each wire is earthed short to a
> common electrode. Some directly to ground. Some via a protector.
> Bottom line - earthing defines the protection - anywhere in the world.
>
Earthing is a safety mechanism, nothing to do with surges AT ALL.
w_tom
> Earthing is a safety mechanism, nothing to do with surges AT ALL.
Earthing performs numerous functions. Earthing as defined by the
National Electrical Code is only for human safety. Therefore all
utilities connect to a common earthing electrode. But earthing also
addressed other functions. Here, the topic is also transistor
safety. Did Ben Franklin install earthing only to protect church
goers from the utility electricity? Of course not. Franklin was
protecting the building from lightning. What provided the
protection? Earthing.
The typically destructive surge is lightning. That is the surge
that typically overwhelms protection inside all appliances. Do we
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? Of course not. We
earth that surge before it can enter the building. Enter via the
church steeple (lightning rods) or enter via utilities (AC electric,
telephone, etc).
Only one AC electric wire is connected directly to earth. But for
transistor protection, all incoming wires must make that 'less than 10
foot' earthing connection. Earthing for human safety as defined by
the NEC. And earthing so that direct lightning strikes to utility
wires are earthed - transistor safety. Those other AC electric wires
are connected directly to earth via a protector.
A protector without earth ground may be earth surges, destructively,
via household appliances. Earthing directly or earthing via a
protector: the connection must be short - less than 10 feet. Also,
it must have no sharp bends, no splices, be separated from other non-
earthing wires, etc. These requirements are beyond what the NEC
demands. These requirements must be included in an earthing
installation so that earthing for 'human safety' is upgraded also for
'transistor safety'.
Earthing serves many masters. Human safety as defined by National
Electrical Code is only one example. This industry professional
application note demonstrates same (even underground wires must
connect to earthing before entering a building):
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
Orange County FL had to eliminate damage to their high reliability
facilities. How did Orange County stop transistor damage? They fixed
the building earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
Review any high reliability facility. Earthing is not just for
human electrical safety. Earthing is also the most essential part of
their surge protection system. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground.
Bud--
> On Apr 24, 5:21 am, "Keith Wilby" <h...@there.com> wrote:
>
>>Earthing is a safety mechanism, nothing to do with surges AT ALL.
>
I agree with w_ that lightning induced surges are ultimately dissipated
by earthing . Earthing is part of the suppression of many other surges.
>
> A protector without earth ground may be earth surges, destructively,
> via household appliances. Earthing directly or earthing via a
> protector: the connection must be short - less than 10 feet. Also,
> it must have no sharp bends, no splices, be separated from other non-
> earthing wires, etc. These requirements are beyond what the NEC
> demands. These requirements must be included in an earthing
> installation so that earthing for 'human safety' is upgraded also for
> 'transistor safety'.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. But
the IEEE guide explains, plug–in suppressors work primarily by clamping
the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor, not
earthing. The IEEE guide says earthing occurs elsewhere.
> This industry professional
> application note demonstrates same (even underground wires must
> connect to earthing before entering a building):
> http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
> Orange County FL had to eliminate damage to their high reliability
> facilities. How did Orange County stop transistor damage? They fixed
> the building earthing:
> http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
w_ has a fetish with tower antennas. If you have a tower antenna
(lightning rod) in your backyard these links may be useful.
> A protector is only as effective as
> its earth ground.
>
The religious belief in earthing.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing.
--
bud--
Mike Tomlinson
<w_t...@usa.net> writes
[usual crap elided]
Your failure to respond to questions posed previously is noted. Here
they are again to refresh your memory:
1) Please post details of a whole house surge protector available from a
well-known US DIY chain for less than $50. 2) Post using your real
name, detail your qualifications. 3) Declare for whom you work and where
your financial interest lies in promoting the devices you constantly
advocate.
--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.badvista.org/
(")_(") http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38926
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html#8
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39051
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39087
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37091
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36653
w_tom
Earthing performs numerous functions. Earthing as defined by the
National Electrical Code is only for human safety. Therefore all
utilities connect to a common earthing electrode. But earthing also
addressed other functions. Here, the topic is also transistor
safety. Did Ben Franklin install earthing only to protect church
goers from the utility electricity? Of course not. Franklin was
protecting the building from lightning. What provided the
protection? Earthing.
The typically destructive surge is lightning. That is the surge
that typically overwhelms protection inside all appliances. Do we
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? Of course not. We
earth that surge before it can enter the building. Enter via the
church steeple (lightning rods) or enter via utilities (AC electric,
telephone, etc).
Only one AC electric wire is connected directly to earth. But for
transistor protection, all incoming wires must make that 'less than 10
foot' earthing connection. Earthing for human safety as defined by
the NEC. And earthing so that direct lightning strikes to utility
wires are earthed - transistor safety. Those other AC electric wires
are connected directly to earth via a protector.
A protector without earth ground may be earth surges, destructively,
via household appliances. Earthing directly or earthing via a
protector: the connection must be short - less than 10 feet. Also,
it must have no sharp bends, no splices, be separated from other non-
earthing wires, etc. These requirements are beyond what the NEC
demands. These requirements must be included in an earthing
installation so that earthing for 'human safety' is upgraded also for
'transistor safety'.
Earthing serves many masters. Human safety as defined by National
Electrical Code is only one example. This industry professional
application note demonstrates same (even underground wires must
connect to earthing before entering a building):
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
Orange County FL had to eliminate damage to their high reliability
facilities. How did Orange County stop transistor damage? They fixed
the building earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
Review any high reliability facility. Earthing is not just for
human electrical safety. Earthing is also the most essential part of
their surge protection system. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground.
Keith Wilby
> On Apr 24, 5:21 am, "Keith Wilby" <h...@there.com> wrote:
>> Earthing is a safety mechanism, nothing to do with surges AT ALL.
>
> Earthing performs numerous functions. Earthing as defined by the
> National Electrical Code is only for human safety.
Two contradictory statements. QED.
<snip War and Peace>
You have *way* too much time on your hands.
w_tom
> "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1177450945.1...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>National Electrical Code is only for human safety.
>
> Two contradictory statements. QED.
Which only proves that some do the work before knowing something and
others cannot even bother to read the short summary. Latter person need
not read, mock the science, and then be an expert? That is what Keith
Wilby has just posted.
Meanwhile, earthing is essential to transistor safety. Earthing is
also essential to human safety. Earthing installed and enhanced beyond
what is required by code because earthing is surge protection.
Mike Tomlinson
<w_...@usa.net> writes
>Latter person need
>not read, mock the science, and then be an expert?
So, since you make yourself out to be the "expert" *snort*, what is your
full name, and what are the qualifications you feel entitle you to
pontificate on the subject? A Salesman of the Month certificate doesn't
count.
Oh, and where's your link to that sub $50 whole house protective device?
Of course, it doesn't exist, which is why you can't produce a link to it
despite having been asked to do so by several people.
w_tom = no verifiable identity, no credibility, no shame.
Arno Wagner
>>Latter person need
>>not read, mock the science, and then be an expert?
> So, since you make yourself out to be the "expert" *snort*, what is your
> full name, and what are the qualifications you feel entitle you to
> pontificate on the subject? A Salesman of the Month certificate doesn't
> count.
> Oh, and where's your link to that sub $50 whole house protective device?
> Of course, it doesn't exist, which is why you can't produce a link to it
> despite having been asked to do so by several people.
> w_tom = no verifiable identity, no credibility, no shame.
No understanding of the subject matter as well. Just some
mantras to repeat. And he will lie and falsly accuse without
restraint.
Arno
Keith Wilby
news:xJedndhVdviDMbLb...@nni.com...
> Keith Wilby wrote:
>> "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:1177450945.1...@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> Earthing performs numerous functions. Earthing as defined by the
>>>National Electrical Code is only for human safety.
>>
>> Two contradictory statements. QED.
>
> Which only proves that some do the work before knowing something and
> others cannot even bother to read the short summary.
Please show your working for this "proof". On second thoughts, don't.
You're tedious.
> Latter person need not read, mock the science,
No sign of it in your babble.
and then be an expert?
I never made such a claim.
> That is what Keith Wilby has just posted.
No. No it is not. And at least I have the courage to post under my true
identity.
> Meanwhile,
Meanwhile? Is this a murder mystery?
> earthing is essential to transistor safety.
I simply *MUST* earth my portable transistor radios.
> Earthing is also essential to human safety.
Which is what I first posted, fool.
> Earthing installed and enhanced beyond what is required by code because
> earthing is surge protection.
Makes no sense at all. Thank you for playing. Goodbye.
w_tom
> A search for w_tom or w_tom1 in Google Groups is enlightening. He comes
> off worst in any thread where he gets involved in an argument. His
> posts consist mostly of FUD with a few technical-sounding bits culled
> from Google tossed in in an attempt to make him sound knowledgeable.
Reviewing a previous discussions involving Mike Tomlinson reveals
that w_tom provides long lists of sources, IEEE citations,
professional studies, professional experiences, and ... well where
does the plug-in protector even claim to provide protection from each
type of surge? Even its manufacturer will not make that claim in
numeric specifications.
What does Mike Tomlinson post? Insults. Denials without any
professional citations, numbers, solutions ... he did not even take a
1st year engineering course. Mike Tomlinson did not even know what
impedance is. Then he posted in direct contradiction to
manufacturer' datasheets. Mike could not even bother to read a
datasheet before attacking?
In a recent discussion on 8 Mar 2007, Mike Tomlinson tried to claim:
> The light does not indicate "massive and unacceptable failure at all",
> it's to tell you that the surge protector has reached the end of its life
> and should be replaced or repaired.
Protector was so grossly undersized as to vaporize; operated well
beyond what an MOV manufacturer intended. Protector was dependent on
a safety device so at to not blow 'fire and sparks'. Mike Tomlinson
did not even know that properly designed protectors only degrade. His
knowledge comes from seeing protectors fail catastrophically; then
assuming that failure is acceptable. Protectors threshold voltage
changes by 10% when the protector has failed - degraded. A tripped
indicator lamp means proetctor was grossly undersized - ineffective
protection. So Mike, who never learned from manufacturer datasheets,
attacks the messenger.
How protector operates and why a light indicates unacceptable
failure - protector was grossly undersized - was explained from
manufacturer datasheets in "Cheap Belkin surge - protectors with
switchable sockets" on 7 Mar at http://tinyurl.com/2e9793 . Mike
somehow knows otherwise. He need not waste time learning the
technology.
Mikes entire technical proof in reply was in "nonsense" and "sheer
nonsense". Mike Tomlinson never learned basic electrical concepts
even taught to first year engineeing students. He is typical of those
who knows plug-in protectors must work without earthing. His proof?
Attack the messenger.
The original poster asked about benefits of a phone line protector.
Provided on 1 April was a long technical reply that included
references to the most important protection compnent - earth ground.
Professional citations in multiple posts provided in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit
needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA
What did Mike Tomlinson, Keith Wilby, or Arno Wagner provide? No
numbers. No professional citations. Just attacks. One learned
technology. Other's learned technology from attack dogs like Cheney
and Rush Limbaugh. Your choice. Do you believe those who insult? Or
do you read maybe a full days worth of technical facts and tutorials
from resonsible sources listed in http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA
.
Mike Tomlinson
w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> writes
**WARNING** to readers unfamiliar with this poster, w_tom:
Readers should note that w_tom's opinions are wholly biased. He
invariably fails to respond when challenged to substantiate
his assertions or to come clean and declare for whom he works.
w_tom's assertions about plug-in surge protectors are based on knowledge
(and I use the world loosely) of those produced for the American market.
Those made for the UK and European market have a different circuit
design and are highly effective when used per the maker's instructions,
a fact he conveniently ignores when it is brought to his attention.
(This is not to say that surge protectors made for the American market
are ineffective - they just work in a different way).
Anyone wishing to see w_tom's record for themselves should perform a
Google Groups search and will note that he invariably comes off the
worse in any discussion regarding his pet subjects, surge protectors and
power supplies, these being the only subjects he ever posts on. w_tom
is unable to substantiate any assertions he makes despite demanding that
others "produce the numbers" (i.e. substantiate THEIR assertions).
[snip more lies and distortions from w_tom, including highly selective
quotations from previous discussions intended to present him in a more
favourable light]
>that w_tom
Do you always refer to yourself in the third person? That's a classic
symptom of denial; I suggest you consult a qualified mental health
professional, preferably someone who has more tangible professional
qualifications than your good self.
> provides long lists of sources, IEEE citations,
>professional studies, professional experiences,
Correction: provides links to "scary pictures" - your own words - in an
attempt to instil fear, uncertainty and doubt in uninformed readers.
>he did not even take a
>1st year engineering course.
I did actually (and well beyond that), which is how I know you're
talking shit. You have no idea what my qualifications are, and you
conspicuously avoid questions about yours. The inference is clear.
> Mike Tomlinson never learned basic electrical concepts
>even taught to first year engineeing students.
Incorrect.
> Mike Tomlinson did not even know what
>impedance is.
Lack of citation, w_tom's standard operating procedure: make a bald
assertion without any evidence to back it up. Rinse and repeat.
> Then he posted in direct contradiction to
>manufacturer' datasheets.
Lack of citation, w_tom's standard operating procedure: make a bald
assertion without any evidence to back it up. Rinse and repeat.
> What did Mike Tomlinson, Keith Wilby, or Arno Wagner provide?
Factual posts, querying the assertions you make without any supporting
evidence and to counter your oft-repeated lies, deliberate distortions
of other people's posts to twist the discussion in your favour, your
selective quoting and FUD.
You're trying to cover up your evasion of the pertinent questions asked
of you by myself and others by going on the attack. What are you trying
to hide, w_tom? Why do you need to cower under the cloak of anonymity?
What is your full name, and what are the qualifications you feel entitle
you to pontificate on the subject of surge protection?
Where's the link to that sub-$50 whole house protective device that
you've claimed is widely available and details of which you've been
invited to provide many times? Your failure to substantiate your claim
can only lead to the inference that you're making it up, just like the
rest of your postings.
Keith Wilby
<snip W&P Pt2>
*WAY* too much time.
Arno Wagner
[...]
>> What did Mike Tomlinson, Keith Wilby, or Arno Wagner provide?
Hehe. After w_tom asserted that I did not look at the manufacturers
datasheet for the MOVs in my protected power-strip or look into it
(without knowing any such thing), I posted the exact type of the MOVs
in there and that they are 15kA rated from the manufacturers
Datasheet, since I had done both. w_tom conveniently ignored that
posting, since it made him look abysmally bad. Seems to me w_tom
has trouble perceiving reality. BTW, w_tom, what about those
spec's I posted and your assertion that I did not have them?
> Factual posts, querying the assertions you make without any supporting
> evidence and to counter your oft-repeated lies, deliberate distortions
> of other people's posts to twist the discussion in your favour, your
> selective quoting and FUD.
> You're trying to cover up your evasion of the pertinent questions asked
> of you by myself and others by going on the attack. What are you trying
> to hide, w_tom? Why do you need to cower under the cloak of anonymity?
Utter and complete incompetence. Was the same on the discussion
about PSUs some time back here. He had some loose grasp of some
checklist tests usable to detect defects in a very specific
PSU design with specific parametrization. He did not understand
at all, how this PSU design works and demonstrated so repeatedly.
He also demonstrated that he does not understand how ripple
is measured and that he cannot understand the ATX PSU design
document.
> What is your full name, and what are the qualifications you feel entitle
> you to pontificate on the subject of surge protection?
> Where's the link to that sub-$50 whole house protective device that
> you've claimed is widely available and details of which you've been
> invited to provide many times? Your failure to substantiate your claim
> can only lead to the inference that you're making it up, just like the
> rest of your postings.
Well, by now I would say he cannot provide them at all.
Possibly because he made them up.
Arno
Bud--
> In article <1177635842.5...@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> writes
>
> **WARNING** to readers unfamiliar with this poster, w_tom:
>
> Readers should note that w_tom's opinions are wholly biased. He
> invariably fails to respond when challenged to substantiate
> his assertions or to come clean and declare for whom he works.
>
> w_tom's assertions about plug-in surge protectors are based on knowledge
> (and I use the world loosely) of those produced for the American market.
Nope. They are based on his belief that surge suppression can not be
done with out earthing. The previously posted IEEE guide on surges and
surge suppression at:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
says plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all
wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. Because
plug-in suppressors don't work primarily by earthing w_ believes they
cannot possibly work.
> Those made for the UK and European market have a different circuit
> design and are highly effective when used per the maker's instructions,
> a fact he conveniently ignores when it is brought to his attention.
> (This is not to say that surge protectors made for the American market
> are ineffective - they just work in a different way).
I seriously doubt European plug-in suppressors are any different. The
primary US surge suppression elements are MOVs. They are connected H-N,
H-G, N-G. I would be surprised if European suppressors were different.
Nine years ago US suppressors were required to have protection that
disconnects overheating MOVs. I would be surprised if Europe didn't also
have that feature. (Service panel suppressors may be a little different
because of differences in earthing.)
What w_ says is bullcrap as applied to American and European plug-in
suppressors. It is based on a religiously held belief in earthing. To
protect his belief he must misconstrue, distort or discredit opposing
sources, like the IEEE guide above or a NIST guide in a previous post.
w_ claims he "provides long lists of sources, IEEE citations,
professional studies". NONE of them say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
And w_ says there are no citations for plug-in suppressors. But the IEEE
and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
The IEEE guide, by the way, was originally came from w_. Some other
citations he is fond of actually say plug-in suppressors work. He is
rather literally a religious fanatic. He uses google-groups to search
for "surge" so he can spread his religious doctrine to the heathen.
Unfortunatley he encounters some pagans like you.
What w_ says is as much bullcrap this side of the pond as your side.
>
>>provides long lists of sources, IEEE citations,
>>professional studies, professional experiences,
>
>
> Correction: provides links to "scary pictures" - your own words - in an
> attempt to instil fear, uncertainty and doubt in uninformed readers.
>
Scarry pictures, from w_'s own source, was made irrelevant by a change
in the US-UL standard 9 years ago. But what else has w_ got but scare
tactics.
>
> Where's the link to that sub-$50 whole house protective device that
> you've claimed is widely available and details of which you've been
> invited to provide many times? Your failure to substantiate your claim
> can only lead to the inference that you're making it up, just like the
> rest of your postings.
>
Why he continues to post the $50 suppressor is beyond me. Perhaps he has
fogotten how to change his cut-and-paste bolerplate.
--------------------
Nice post Mike.
--
bud--
Arno Wagner
Sounds very much like the swiss upressor I use. Supressors for
fuse cabinets are available in several different configurations,
since there are older and newer installations around and they
may be different. One typical difference may be that all the
electical installations I haave seen so far (in Germany, Austria
and Switzerland) have three phases, not the one that seems to be
customary at least in parts of the US. So a ''whole house''
protector here will have three (all phases individually against
ground) and in some cases four (N against ground as well, especially
if the house inlet is on the roof and has its on N line) MOVs and/or
gas discharge devices. The cheapest ones I found were around 150USD
with 3 times 45'000A protection with MOVs and around 40USD for a
replacement MOV module (which cannot be used alone).
BTW, if you are really paranoid, you can get MOVs up to
a 100'000A rating for about 200USD per pice.
> What w_ says is bullcrap as applied to American and European plug-in
> suppressors. It is based on a religiously held belief in earthing. To
> protect his belief he must misconstrue, distort or discredit opposing
> sources, like the IEEE guide above or a NIST guide in a previous post.
> w_ claims he "provides long lists of sources, IEEE citations,
> professional studies". NONE of them say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
> And w_ says there are no citations for plug-in suppressors. But the IEEE
> and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
> The IEEE guide, by the way, was originally came from w_. Some other
> citations he is fond of actually say plug-in suppressors work. He is
> rather literally a religious fanatic. He uses google-groups to search
> for "surge" so he can spread his religious doctrine to the heathen.
> Unfortunatley he encounters some pagans like you.
> What w_ says is as much bullcrap this side of the pond as your side.
Sounds quite like it.
>>
>>>provides long lists of sources, IEEE citations,
>>>professional studies, professional experiences,
>>
>>
>> Correction: provides links to "scary pictures" - your own words - in an
>> attempt to instil fear, uncertainty and doubt in uninformed readers.
>>
> Scarry pictures, from w_'s own source, was made irrelevant by a change
> in the US-UL standard 9 years ago. But what else has w_ got but scare
> tactics.
>>
>> Where's the link to that sub-$50 whole house protective device that
>> you've claimed is widely available and details of which you've been
>> invited to provide many times? Your failure to substantiate your claim
>> can only lead to the inference that you're making it up, just like the
>> rest of your postings.
>>
> Why he continues to post the $50 suppressor is beyond me. Perhaps he has
> fogotten how to change his cut-and-paste bolerplate.
Hehe. A plausible hypothesis.
Arno
w_tom
> ...
> w_tom's assertions about plug-in surge protectors are based on knowledge
> (and I use the world loosely) of those produced for the American market.
> design and are highly effective when used per the maker's instructions,
> a fact he conveniently ignores when it is brought to his attention.
Mike Tomlinson again offers no technical information. Meanwhile a
British Standard for surge protection is based in American standards.
That British Standard is BS6651. Why does w_tom again provide
supporting technical facts whereas Mike Tomlinson only posts personal
attacks?
The lurker is warned about those who did not even learn basic
engineering concepts (such as wire impedance) but somehow know
earthing (as demanded and quoted from IEEE Standards) is not required
for protection. Even cited were professional papers from the Bell
System Technical Journal when AT&T was learning what would provide
protection for something new - transistorized switching computers.
Why? Because earthing protection from direct lightning strikes is and
must be standard everywhere.
British AC electrical system is similar to that found in Europe,
both Americas, Asia, etc. Three phase (delta and wyes) are standard
worldwide. US also uses a two phase system in residential service.
With technical training, Mike would have known this.
Every system has one wire earthed directly. For protection, every
other wire must be earthed, short, via a protector - for effective
protection. That is standard where effectcive protection is installed
in the US AND is standard where protection is installed in Britain.
With technical knowledge, then Mike would know about BS6651 - a
British Standard for surge protection - and about an American
standard on which BS6651 was based. More technical facts that Mike
Tomlinson could not provide; so he attacks the messenger.
Why would BS6651 use same technology found in an America standard IF
British system was so different? It's not so different. Mike
Tomlinson has insufficient technical knowledge and even less about
American standards.
w_tom has posted technical reasons supporting a fundamental fact -
protection is only as effective as its earth ground. How to identify
an ineffective protector in any country? 1) No dedicated earthing
wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing. That
defines ineffective plug-in protectors. In N America where telcos
install a 'whole house' protector for free - protector makes that
'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. Codes demand that earthing
wire exists to a single point earth ground. Earthing necessary for
both human safety AND for transistors safety.
Mike Tomlinson
<w_t...@usa.net> writes
[snip the same tired old diatribe, this time including some stuff about
BS6651 culled from Google in an attempt to make himself sound
authoritative]
Instead of responding to specific points made in mine and others'
postings, w_tom, you try and create a diversion by accusing me of
attacking you personally, then change the subject by introducing BS6651.
Let's stick to the current discussion, shall we?
* Why don't you respond to Bud's comments, copied below? You have
conspicuously ignored them:
"w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
"It is a lie to say these devices are available for $50 unless you can
provide a link to a source."
"For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
"some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised
US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as
a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998."
"It is a lie to say these picutres are "current technology reaalities"."
"How come people in this newsgroup don't seem to like you w_?"
"And still never seen - a link to a site that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. Could it be nobody agrees with you w_? Where are
your links? And include your link for $50 ‘whole house’ suppressors."
"And still no links that say plug-in suppressors are effective. Where
are your links w_? Have you noticed no one here believes you? Post
your links and convince everyone."
"They are based on his belief that surge suppression can not be done
with out earthing. The previously posted IEEE guide on surges and surge
suppression at:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
says plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all
wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. Because
plug-in suppressors don't work primarily by earthing w_ believes they
cannot possibly work."
* Why don't you respond to chrisv's question (about whole-house
protector available for sub $50)?
"Why don't you point one out for us? You've been asked repeatedly."
* Why don't you respond to Keith Wilby's request to show proof for
your assertions?
"Please show your working for this "proof"."
* Why don't you respond to Arno's questions?
"After w_tom asserted that I did not look at the manufacturers datasheet
for the MOVs in my protected power-strip or look into it (without
knowing any such thing), I posted the exact type of the MOVs in there
and that they are 15kA rated from the manufacturers Datasheet, since I
had done both. w_tom conveniently ignored that posting, since it made
him look abysmally bad. Seems to me w_tom has trouble perceiving
reality. BTW, w_tom, what about those spec's I posted and your assertion
that I did not have them?"
You're floundering, w_tom. Why don't you post in-line, responding to
the specific points that other posters make, like everyone else does?
I'll tell you why: it allows you to evade inconvenient questions and to
avoid getting too deeply mired in technical discussions, because you do
not have the technical knowledge or ability to argue your point in a
coherent manner.
Arno Wagner
> * Why don't you respond to Bud's comments, copied below? You have
> conspicuously ignored them:
> * Why don't you respond to chrisv's question (about whole-house
> protector available for sub $50)?
> * Why don't you respond to Arno's questions?
> You're floundering, w_tom. Why don't you post in-line, responding to
> the specific points that other posters make, like everyone else does?
> I'll tell you why: it allows you to evade inconvenient questions and to
> avoid getting too deeply mired in technical discussions, because you do
> not have the technical knowledge or ability to argue your point in a
> coherent manner.
Actually by now I believe w_tom does not understand the technical
details of hiw own proposals. I think he is completely clueless
about both surge protection and power supply design and has just
seen some designs or checklists by others without understanding
them and their scope.
Arno
w_tom
anything into 'weapons of mass destruction' using word association,
spin, distortion, and outright lies. Since Mike Tomlinson does not
even know what impedance is, then he ignores simple electrical
concepts.
On Apr 29, 3:58 am, Mike Tomlinson <m...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> ...
> "They are based on his belief thatsurgesuppression can not be done
> with out earthing. The previously posted IEEE guide on surges andsurge
> suppression at:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
> says plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all
> wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor.
> Because plug-in suppressors don't work primarily by earthing w_ believes
> they cannot possibly work."
Ground for suppressor (also called a 'whole house' protector) is a
uniquely specific ground: single point earth ground. A plug-in
protector will somehow ground via wires inside walls? Mike previously
could not grasp this. The numbers: a 15 meter wire from wall
receptacle to that earth ground is <0.2 ohms resistance (electricians
understand that). Same wire is maybe 130 ohms impedance to a surge
(electricians need not learn impedance). What happens when a trivial
100 amp surge is earthed (connected, clamped, shunted, diverted) via
that 15 meter wire? 100 amps times 130 ohms means 13,000 volts. Will
that hundred amps fight through as much as 13,000 volts? Of course
not. That curent will find other, destructive paths to earth.
Above numbers demonstrate why does a surge is shunted, 8000 volts
destructively, through an adjacent TV. Wire impedance is too high.
Surge found a other paths to earth, destructively, via household
appliances - Page 42 Figure 8.
That 130 ohms impedance (all but no earthing connection) is made
worse by other facts. When w_tom provided information to Jesco Lincke
(the original poster) on 1 Apr, included were engineering
requirements for an earthing connection: 'less than 3 meters', no
sharp bends, no splices, separated from other wires, not inside
conductive conduit, etc. Mike Tomlinson says a plug-in protector is
connected 15 meters to ground? Yes, via a wire that violates every
connection requirement. No wonder plug-in protector manufacturers
avoid all discussion about earthing; do not even claim to protect from
the typically destructive type of surge. They claim protection from
some surges - and forget to mention that surge is a type that is
typically not desctructive and does not seek earth ground.
Assume a plug-in protector earthed via safety ground wires inside
walls. (Bud says plug-in protectors don't do that.) Surge induces
transients on all other wires. Other appliances must protect
themselves from induced surges because a plug-in protector tried to
earth via a wire bundle - violated the long list of earthing
requirements. Other IEEE papers including Montandon discuss this
problem. But again, Mike must first learn 1st year technology to
understand Page 42 Figure 8: why a plug-in protector damages adjacent
appliances.
Mike reposts another myth:
> For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
> "some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised
> US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as
> a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998."
Overheating was first addressed in mid 1980s with UL1449. PC
Magazine did two separate articles on that problem in the mid 1980s.
20 years later and still plug-in protectors that are grossly
undersized (to maximize profits and to get people like Mike to promote
their products) create scary pictures - just not as often:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
Notice the last picture set. MOVs were removed. An indicator said
the protector was still good. Does the plug-in protector manufacturer
forget to explain that little problem? Of course. Mike Tomlinson
ignores these things too technical.
Do you believe Mike who has no engineering training? Do you believe
Bud who promotes for plug-in protectors? Or do you believe a West
Whiteland fire department, staff at Handford's Nuclear facility, and
so many other industry professionals. Why do telephone companies not
use these ineffective plug-in protectors? Facilities with trained
engineers that demand real protection also ignore such spin and word
association - ie posts from Mike Tomlinson. Professional used same
well proven techniques from 75+ years ago - that mean direct lightning
strikes without damage. Professionals understand things such as
above numbers, wire impedance, damage created by a protector too close
to the TV, induced transients, proven designs that were even
originally demosntrated by Franklin in 1752, and THE most critical
component in every protection 'system': single point earth ground.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Real world
professionals install a 'whole house' protector with a short
connection to earth ground - or make that same connection without a
protector. Responsible homeowners verify utility earthing connection
integrity as demonstrated by:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Polyphaser, an industry benchmark, makes a protector with no
earthing connection. Why no connection? Earth ground is so critical
that their protector mounts *ON* earth ground - zero feet away.
Reasons why involve something that neither Arno Wagner nor Mike
Tomlinson grasp - basic electrical concepts such as impedance.
Protector at zero feet to earth is even better protection.
Both ignore damaged TVs on Page 42 Figure 8. Explained with numbers
is why a plug-in protector is not properly earthed; why TVs in Page
42 Figure 8 are exposed to thousands of destructive volts.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why $50
'whole house' protectors sold in Lowes and Home Depot accomplish far
more than hundreds of dollars of plug-in protectors. A protector is
only as effective as the only 'system' component that provided
protection: earth ground. What does one do to improve household
surge protection? Inspect the one 'system' component that defines
each protection layer: earthing. No earth ground (ie plug-in
protectors) means no effective protection. Why does Bud insist plug-
in protectors don't need earthing? Bud admits plug-in protectors are
all but not earthed. Therefore Bud says earthing is not necessary for
plug-in protectors.
Then we have scary pictures of protectors that even meet UL1449
requirements 9created in the 1980s) and still blow "fire and sparks'.
Responsible manufacturers (Leviton, Intermatic, Siemens, Square D,
Cutler-Hammer, GE, et al) sell 'whole house' protectors with that
dedicated wire for a low impedance ('less than 10 foot') earthing
connection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Mike Tomlinson
w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> writes
> Since Mike Tomlinson does not
>even know what impedance is, then he ignores simple electrical
>concepts.
Yet another bald lie, with no citation provided. I understand perfectly
well what impedance is, unlike you.
>
>On Apr 29, 3:58 am, Mike Tomlinson <m...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>> ...
>> "They are based on his belief thatsurgesuppression can not be done
>> with out earthing. The previously posted IEEE guide on surges andsurge
>> suppression at:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May0
>51.pdf
>> says plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all
>> wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor.
>> Because plug-in suppressors don't work primarily by earthing w_ believes
>> they cannot possibly work."
You really are a remarkably stupid man, are you not? I did not write the
above. It was written by Bud, and I quoted it in my last posting.
> Ground for suppressor (also called a 'whole house' protector) is a
>uniquely specific ground: single point earth ground. A plug-in
>protector will somehow ground via wires inside walls?
More lies, spin and distortion. Whole-house suppressors and plug-in
surge protectors do different jobs, as you well know.
And yes, plug-in suppressors ground via the earth connection provided in
the socket outlet (except in North America, where the presence of earth
cannot be guaranteed in older domestic wiring installations.)
> Mike previously
>could not grasp this.
No evidence = yet another worthless accusation.
> Mike reposts another myth:
>> For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
>> "some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised
>> US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as
>> a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998."
Not posted by me, but quoted by me. Learn to read, you stupid little
man.
>get people like Mike to promote
>their products
I don't promote surge protectors. I have no financial interest in any
company involved in surge protection, unlike you who fails to declare it
and refuses to respond when challenged on the matter. I do, however,
consider it important to counter your FUD when you post it, like this:
>) create scary pictures - just not as often:
Woooo!!! Scary!!!! More FUD from w_tom
> Notice the last picture set. MOVs were removed. An indicator said
>the protector was still good.
Only because you're too stupid or uninformed to understand how the
circuit works. The supply to the MOVs has to fail before the
"protection good" indicator goes out. Simply removing the MOVs will not
cause the indicator to extinguish, because the power to the MOVs is
still present. Too complicated for you to understand.
> Mike Tomlinson
>ignores these things too technical.
I don't; I understand how they work, unlike you.
> Do you believe Mike who has no engineering training?
Another lie with no evidence to back it up. I have over twenty years
practical experience in the engineering industry, unlike you.
>Why do telephone companies not
>use these ineffective plug-in protectors?
They do, as has been demonstrated to you in the past, but you
"conveniently" forget. Or choose to just plain lie.
>THE most critical
>component in every protection 'system': single point earth ground.
Statement of religious mania yet again.
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
And again.
> Both ignore damaged TVs on Page 42 Figure 8. Explained with numbers
>is why a plug-in protector is not properly earthed; why TVs in Page
>42 Figure 8 are exposed to thousands of destructive volts.
Already explained in technical detail, and your FUD debunked, by Bud.
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground
And again. (Yawn.)
> which is why $50
>'whole house' protectors sold in Lowes and Home Depot
which claim you cannot substantiate despite being challenged to do so
many, many times.
>Inspect the one 'system' component that defines
>each protection layer: earthing.
Wrong. Earth is not essential for surge protection. Surge protection
is quite capable of being achieved without earth. As has already been
demonstrated by Bud.
> No earth ground (ie plug-in
>protectors) means no effective protection.
And again.
> Then we have scary pictures
Oooh! I'm SO scared! Not.
> of protectors that even meet UL1449
>requirements
No proof, as usual.
> 9created in the 1980s)
The date's moving further back now. Do you have a Tardis too? Does the
w in w_tom mean you're in fact Doctor Who?
>Responsible manufacturers (Leviton, Intermatic, Siemens, Square D,
>Cutler-Hammer, GE, et al) sell 'whole house' protectors with that
>dedicated wire for a low impedance ('less than 10 foot') earthing
>connection.
But you can't or won't verify your claim by providing us with the link
we're waiting for.
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
So you say. No-one in this thread, and in the many other threads you've
"contributed" to on the subject, believes you, and your posting style
means you are highly unlikely to convince anyone.
Go away, w_tom. Your village in Pennsylvania is missing its idiot.
Bud--
>
> Above numbers demonstrate why does a surge is shunted, 8000 volts
> destructively, through an adjacent TV.
The lie repeated yet again.
> Surge found a other paths to earth, destructively, via household
> appliances - Page 42 Figure 8.
And again.
> But again, Mike must first learn 1st year technology to
> understand Page 42 Figure 8: why a plug-in protector damages adjacent
> appliances.
And again.
> Overheating was first addressed in mid 1980s with UL1449. PC
> Magazine did two separate articles on that problem in the mid 1980s.
> 20 years later and still plug-in protectors that are grossly
> undersized (to maximize profits and to get people like Mike to promote
> their products) create scary pictures - just not as often:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
> http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
My previous posts were apparently too complicated. Making it very easy
and quoting the hanford link:
"Surge protection devices in some older model multi-outlet power strips
can overheat and create a potential fire hazard."
Why does hanford say both "some" and "older"?
and:
"Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL 1449, 2nd Edition, Standard For
Safety For Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, now requires thermal
protection in power strips. This protection is provided by a thermal
fuse located next to the MOV."
Those with knowledge of surge suppression know 1449-2ed was effective 1998.
Why do you repeat the lie that overheating is a problem with new
suppressors?
Why do you cite PCMag articles 27 years old?
Why do you use scare tactics that may apply only to very old
suppressors? Is it because you have no technical agruments?
>
> Notice the last picture set. MOVs were removed. An indicator said
> the protector was still good. Does the plug-in protector manufacturer
> forget to explain that little problem? Of course. Mike Tomlinson
> ignores these things too technical.
This is indeed a problem if you have vandals in your area that steal
MOVs from surge suppressors. Check with your local police department to
see if you are at risk.
> why TVs in Page
> 42 Figure 8 are exposed to thousands of destructive volts.
And the lie a final time.
>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why $50
> 'whole house' protectors sold in Lowes and Home Depot accomplish far
> more than hundreds of dollars of plug-in protectors.
The required religious earth mantra.
And the mythical $50 suppressor. I think w_ was probably once pretty
sharp but is now not playing with a full deck.
Borrowing from another w_ post in this thread:
> US also uses a two phase system in residential service.
> With technical training, Mike would have known this.
Two phase systems used to be used in some US/Canada areas. No electrical
engineer, or even electrician, would call the US residential syatem 2
phase. With technical training w_ would have known this.
Regarding BS6651 in the other w_ post, another w_ link is:
http://www.keison.co.uk/bowthorpe/docs/Application%20Guide.pdf
- its title is "A guide to lightning and surge protection to BS6651:1999
annex `C'"
- note "BS6651" in the title
- on page 12: "Fileservers, mainframe computers, PABX, and other such
hardware are important for providing critical services to the company
and should, therefore, be fitted with category A protection." That is -
plug-in surge suppressors.
- they say nothing about using multiport suppressors which I think is
wrong - but it is YOUR link.
- page 13 shows a diagram of an office building with appropriate surge
protectors. It includes plug-in surge suppressors.
Then there is the IEEE guide, orginally a w_ link, that says plug-in
suppressors are effective. IEEE, hanford, keeson - none of YOUR links
agree with you w_. Where are the links that say plug-in suppressors do
NOT work. There must be thousands of sites and you can only find sites
that say plug-in suppressors work?? How come???
--
bud--
Keith Wilby
>
> thousands of destructive volts.
>
Hahahaha .... oww, my sides, stoppit .... hahahaha.
chrisv
> The lurker is warned about
Will you please fsck off, w_tom?
chrisv
>Responsible manufacturers (Leviton, Intermatic, Siemens, Square D,
>Cutler-Hammer, GE, et al) sell 'whole house' protectors with that
>dedicated wire for a low impedance ('less than 10 foot') earthing
>connection.
Prove it, asswipe. You've been asked COUNTLESS times.
w_tom
> Prove it, asswipe. You've been asked COUNTLESS times.
A new poster who provides no facts and posts profanity. Profanity
being the symptom of those who always know; could not bother to read
days of citations provided in previous posts. chrisv - did you bother
to read anything?
Provided in every post were direct citations from numerous
responsible sources that install, study, and recommend protection. In
each case, responsible companies, organizations, etc all demand one
item for every protection 'system' - earth ground. Even Page 42
Figure 8 in Bud's citation notes the importance of a short connection
to earth. Did chrisv simply ignore Page 42 Figure 8? Did he ignore
what happens when a surge must find earth ground, destructively, via
the TV? Since he posted profanity, then figure 8 may be too complex
for him.
Use another of Bud's citation. What is necessary for protection?
>From page 6 (Adobe page 8):
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm. So
> a name that makes sense would be "surge diverter"
> but it was not picked. So, for the rest of this
> booklet, we will stick to the most popular "surge
> protector".
Chrisv - for your benefit, I will simplify that 'too long'
paragraph. A protector's job is to divert a surge to earth ground. Is
that clear enough? Or is more mocking required to get you to first
read and learn? What happens when not connected to earth? No
effective protection. Simple enough?
Also provided was one days worth of reading. Chrisv - did you
bother to read it? Obviously not. Posted on 30 Mar 2005 in "UPS
unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe" is that list of professional
citations and technical facts:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA
What does each and every responsible manufacturer of effective
protectors provide? A dedicated connection to earthing. Apparently
chrisv never bothered to view products from responsible
manufacturers. Leviton, Intermatic, Siemens, Square D, Cutler-Hammer,
GE, Polyphaser, et al sell effective protectors with a dedicated wire
for a low impedance ('less than 10 foot') earthing connection. Need I
prove those earthing connections exist? Of course not. Chrisv need
only visit any electrical supply house, Lowes, or Home Depot to view
those dedicated earthing connections - to learn what really exists.
Chrisv need not even read a paragraph to view effective solutions with
a dedicated earthing wire.
Chrisv - I associate posts of profanity and no technical facts with
lower intelligence beings. You have a choice. Increase your
intelligence by first reading the citations - or continue posting
abusive words. Currently you demonstrate the intelligence level of
those who advocate power strip protectors.
Keith Wilby
Could I respectfully suggest that we all stop feeding this troll now and
hope that it will die?
Mike Tomlinson
<he...@there.com> writes
>Could I respectfully suggest that we all stop feeding this troll now and
>hope that it will die?
You have my vote, though past experience shows the troll doesn't know
when it is beaten. It seems likely that it has a sado-masochistic
fetish, which is why it keeps coming back for a regular thrashing.
Arno Wagner
>>Could I respectfully suggest that we all stop feeding this troll now and
>>hope that it will die?
> You have my vote, though past experience shows the troll doesn't know
> when it is beaten. It seems likely that it has a sado-masochistic
> fetish, which is why it keeps coming back for a regular thrashing.
Juts let the troll have the last word. All the arguments why it is a
troll and not to be believed are here in all the detail anyone could
want.
Arno
Keith Wilby
news:$m5cNBB3...@jasper.org.uk...
> It seems likely that it has a sado-masochistic
> fetish, which is why it keeps coming back for a regular thrashing.
>
LOL, that's lightened my morning :-)
Keith.