Chip with simple program for Toy

[Tantalust]

"NB" <nobuyout@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53f2fef-00bd-40d0-9ac1-c69b3bcadf52@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has
contained those keywords since 2001???

He an obsessive-compulsive disorder victim, apparently driven by some kind
of bizarre fetish involving ground rods.

 

[Jim Prescott]

In article <4818170b$0$19828$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>,
Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote:

"NB" <nobuyout@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53f2fef-00bd-40d0-9ac1-c69b3bcadf52@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has
contained those keywords since 2001???
I think he sells surge suppressor strips and he uses the newsgroups to
promote his products by arguing with people about their effectiveness.

That would be a distinct improvement!

His posts are all about how surge protection has long been well
understood and effective protection isn't that hard but the
methods discussed in this thread are all wrong & stupid.

There is never any suggestion about what one should actually do,
not even an obviously biased one like "buy my product".
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group jgp@seas.rochester.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY

 

[Joel Koltner]

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" <tttpppggg@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55309afa-4aee-4644-b9fb-c61944d1195e@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

That brings me to the puzzle of the self shielding toroidal coil. How
is it that the external magnetic field is negligible?

The idea is that the magnetic field produced (strictly) by the current flowing
in the conductors that completely enclose the toroid produce zero external
field. Certainly in the real world there are wires running up to that toroid
and those wires will contain a field around them. This is probably not
specifically mentioned in the text because (1) it detracts from the problem at
hand (determining the fields inside and outside of the toroid), (2) actually
computing the fields at the junction between, say, some twisted pair of wires
that then diverge and encircle the toroid is a highly non-trivial problem that
probably can't be solved analytically (look up the papers on calculating the
fields in something as "simple" as a step change in the width of a microstrip
transmission line and you'll get a field for what you're up against), (3) the
field from the wires leading up to the toroid will generally be quite small in
comparison to those inside of it and hence can be neglected, and (4) some
authors probably figure this would all be self-evident.

(Note that authors usually do explicitly mention "feed" concerns when they're
dealing with devices intended to create significant external fields, such as
antennas. Pretty much every discussion of dipole antennas, for instance,
contains at least a little bit about how you need to be careful in arranging
the feed...)

I suppose that this puzzle
has been around with ordinary transformers as well, it's just that
visualizing all of that flux whirring around in the toroid is far
prettier.

The other thing is that, by design, transformers are controlling where almost
all of the flux goes (the bit that "gets away" is leakage, and there's plenty
of discussion on designing transformers to minimize it), whereas with "random
wiring" there's no such control and it's difficult to make accurate
predictions. There are common middle grounds, though, such as microstrip
lines and twisted-pair wiring where -- while the field does extend off to
infinity -- you can still draw reasonably accurate pictures of what's going on
in regions close to the conductors.

If the flux did travel through air for even a portion of its trip then
the remarkable permeabilities of any core xformer would be corrupted.

Um, no, it just creates leakage inductance, which primarily serves to limit
frequency response and decrease the transformer's efficiency.

If that flux that would have travelled through air went into the core
then it would cancel out any induced magnetic field.

Not in the general case... fields are vector quantities, so unless you can get
the magnitudes and directions to line up exactly the right way (like a
reversed secondary coil on a transformer does), the fields don't cancel.

---Joel

 

[dBc]

Greetings John..

Regarding:
"While the concept may be foreign or, possibly, even repugnant to
you, even Google advises bottom posting:"

While I appreciate the consideration, I REALLY don't care what
Google believes as "appropriate." I'm not using them now for
newsgroup access and have no plans on using them for newsgroups.
If you're using a newsgroup reader that lists the thread in a
chronological time order, not an issue anyway. There, you see,
you didn't even need to scroll down to the bottom of the listing
to get the reply. Thus, not too much work for you, John.

Cheers,
Mr. Mentor


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qund14p2csvk38a0jthjjatu28s2nh65vk@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:42:46 GMT, "dBc"
<not_necessary@thanks.com>
| wrote:
|
| >Greetings JF..
| >
| >Etiquete on Usenet - you've GOT to be kidding..
| >
| >Cheers,
| >Mr. Mentor
| >
| >The mere thought has got me chuckling, although I DO sincerely
| >appreciate the amusement.
|
| ---
| Etiquette...
|
| While the concept may be foreign or, possibly, even repugnant
to you,
| even Google advises bottom posting:
|
| From:
|
|
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250
|
| "Summarize what you're following up.
|
| When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an
existing
| article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes,
with the
| cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just
start
| typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.
| Look at the quoted text and remove parts that are irrelevant.
| Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
| Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through
your
| post. They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
| comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.
| And if your reply appears on a site before the original article
does,
| they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."
|
| Note that "following up" implies trailing instead of leading.
|
| JF

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Dave.H" <the1930s@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5848ed11-ba50-4405-896a-d72e21848d38@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On May 1, 10:42 pm, "Dave.H" <the19...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I was looking at a 12 volt regulated power supply at Dick Smith
Electronics cat. number M9935 @www.dse.com.aufor a regen radio I'm
planning on building (http://www.schmarder.com/radios/tube/
1-12af6.htm) but the AU$24 is a bit too high for my liking. I was
thinking of using a center tapped transformer, 6.3-0-6.3V @ 500mA, in
series with a 1.3 watt zener diode, I need help with obtaining 12.6
volts from a center tapped transformer, I never had to do it before.
I thought that the two positive primary leads were connected, I don't
want to blow the transformer if this isn't the case.

Any help appreciated,

Thanks
Dave

Transformer is M2853, and zener diode is Z3543 @www.dse.com.au

How would I install the zener diode? I thought they were used in
series with the voltage source much like a rectifier diode, but I just
read that they're used in parallel to the source. Excuse the dumb
question, I've only ever had experience with rectifier diodes like the
1N4007.

There were several power supply designs offered in response to your post on
a voltage doubler. The same principles apply to your 12 VDC circuit. It
would be good for you to become familiar with LTspice where you can try
different configurations and do experiments without blowing something up or
hurting yourself.

For the components you have, you will need a full wave bridge made from
four 1N400x diodes, a capacitor of about 1000 uF 25 VDC, and a resistor
that will drop about 5 volts at the current you need to draw, plus the
zener current. With a 1.3 watt 12 V zener, its maximum current is about 100
mA, so the maximum current draw for your supply should be about that much.

Paul

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"Dave.H" <the1930s@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5848ed11-ba50-4405-896a-d72e21848d38@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On May 1, 10:42 pm, "Dave.H" <the19...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I was looking at a 12 volt regulated power supply at Dick Smith
Electronics cat. number M9935 @www.dse.com.aufor a regen radio I'm
planning on building (http://www.schmarder.com/radios/tube/
1-12af6.htm) but the AU$24 is a bit too high for my liking. I was
thinking of using a center tapped transformer, 6.3-0-6.3V @ 500mA, in
series with a 1.3 watt zener diode, I need help with obtaining 12.6
volts from a center tapped transformer, I never had to do it before.
I thought that the two positive primary leads were connected, I don't
want to blow the transformer if this isn't the case.

Any help appreciated,

Thanks
Dave

Transformer is M2853, and zener diode is Z3543 @www.dse.com.au

How would I install the zener diode? I thought they were used in
series with the voltage source much like a rectifier diode, but I just
read that they're used in parallel to the source. Excuse the dumb
question, I've only ever had experience with rectifier diodes like the
1N4007.

There were several power supply designs offered in response to your post on
a voltage doubler. The same principles apply to your 12 VDC circuit. It
would be good for you to become familiar with LTspice where you can try
different configurations and do experiments without blowing something up or
hurting yourself.

For the components you have, you will need a full wave bridge made from
four 1N400x diodes, a capacitor of about 1000 uF 25 VDC, and a resistor
that will drop about 5 volts at the current you need to draw, plus the
zener current. With a 1.3 watt 12 V zener, its maximum current is about 100
mA, so the maximum current draw for your supply should be about that much.

Paul

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

| For the SquareD 'best' service panel suppressor - SDSB1175C
| - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional
| protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
| - The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is
| used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device."

And do you understand the scientific basis why this is so? I doubt it.


| For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
| - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
| devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
| equipment, televisions, and computers."
|
| It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.

Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look? Sadly,
when marketing gets in control, they tend to hide the imporant engineering
and scientific details. It even happens with companies like Square-D.

Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.


| Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in
| suppressors are NOT effective. It is w_ against the universe.

The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not
cover all situations or all levels of protection.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

| For the SquareD 'best' service panel suppressor - SDSB1175C
| - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional
| protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
| - The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is
| used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device."

And do you understand the scientific basis why this is so? I doubt it.


| For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
| - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
| devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
| equipment, televisions, and computers."
|
| It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.

Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look? Sadly,
when marketing gets in control, they tend to hide the imporant engineering
and scientific details. It even happens with companies like Square-D.

Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.


| Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in
| suppressors are NOT effective. It is w_ against the universe.

The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not
cover all situations or all levels of protection.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv trader4@optonline.net wrote:

| And also never heard an explanation from w_ about the inherrent
| conflict in another aspect of his position. He says appliance/
| electronics manufacturers put surge protection inside the appliance
| and that is peachy keen and appropriate. Yet he can't explain how
| it is that an MOV inside the electronics actually protects, while an
| MOV located in a plug-in is useless. Unless there is a magical earth
| ground inside the electronic appliance, it must operate under the same
| conditions as the plug-in. Geez, that inescapable conflict must give
| w_ nightmares.

Do you know what the acronym for Plug In Surge Suppressor is?

In the case that there is an MOV inside, the MOV in the plug-in unit will
not provide as much _increment_ in benefit. However, if the appliance is
interconnected with others, then the _increment_ in benefit from a plug-in
unit will be greater as long as the other appliances are connected through
a common plug-in unit.

An MOV can protect against slow rise surges (which are the majority of
events) by means of balancing the voltage difference between any two
wires it is connected to. When the MOV conducts during such a surge, it
reduces the voltage _difference_ between wires. Different points inside
the appliance will then all rise in voltage approximately the same. As
long as that voltage difference is reasonably low, the device is protected.

Note that devices interconnected to other devices in the case described
above will have issues with the voltage across that interconnection.
If all the interconnected devices are powered through the same plug-in
suppressor, the voltage differences can be more effectively equalized.
In the case of NOT using a common plug-in unit for interconnected devices,
the risk for differences in voltage is at least minimized by using the same
branch circuit, or even better, the same outlet with a non-protective power
strip. As the surge propogates through the building wiring, it is not at
the same voltage potential throughout.

The level of protection provided in this case is greater for lower frequency
energy, and less for higher frequency energy. Just how much higher frequency
energy you get depends on where the lightning hits. Other protection that
provides a low impedance path to ground will also be more effective against
low frequency energy. The further away the lightning strike is, the more it
loses energy through conductor inductance and alternate paths to ground.
The inductance blocks higher frequency energy while the paths to ground work
best against the lower frequency energy.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv trader4@optonline.net wrote:

| And also never heard an explanation from w_ about the inherrent
| conflict in another aspect of his position. He says appliance/
| electronics manufacturers put surge protection inside the appliance
| and that is peachy keen and appropriate. Yet he can't explain how
| it is that an MOV inside the electronics actually protects, while an
| MOV located in a plug-in is useless. Unless there is a magical earth
| ground inside the electronic appliance, it must operate under the same
| conditions as the plug-in. Geez, that inescapable conflict must give
| w_ nightmares.

Do you know what the acronym for Plug In Surge Suppressor is?

In the case that there is an MOV inside, the MOV in the plug-in unit will
not provide as much _increment_ in benefit. However, if the appliance is
interconnected with others, then the _increment_ in benefit from a plug-in
unit will be greater as long as the other appliances are connected through
a common plug-in unit.

An MOV can protect against slow rise surges (which are the majority of
events) by means of balancing the voltage difference between any two
wires it is connected to. When the MOV conducts during such a surge, it
reduces the voltage _difference_ between wires. Different points inside
the appliance will then all rise in voltage approximately the same. As
long as that voltage difference is reasonably low, the device is protected.

Note that devices interconnected to other devices in the case described
above will have issues with the voltage across that interconnection.
If all the interconnected devices are powered through the same plug-in
suppressor, the voltage differences can be more effectively equalized.
In the case of NOT using a common plug-in unit for interconnected devices,
the risk for differences in voltage is at least minimized by using the same
branch circuit, or even better, the same outlet with a non-protective power
strip. As the surge propogates through the building wiring, it is not at
the same voltage potential throughout.

The level of protection provided in this case is greater for lower frequency
energy, and less for higher frequency energy. Just how much higher frequency
energy you get depends on where the lightning hits. Other protection that
provides a low impedance path to ground will also be more effective against
low frequency energy. The further away the lightning strike is, the more it
loses energy through conductor inductance and alternate paths to ground.
The inductance blocks higher frequency energy while the paths to ground work
best against the lower frequency energy.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

[Tantalust]

<trader4@optonline.net> wrote

Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
ones too.

Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a
salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!

 

[theloneranger100@aol.com]

"George Orwell" <the_pig@farm.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A914AE71370Borwellian@127.0.0.1...

"Doomsday Machine" <seelinks@article.com> wrote in
news:CSaSj.104528$rd2.73624@pd7urf3no:

French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black
Hole
Generator) Unknown Planetary Risk To Create BIG BANG


That's why I never go out without wearing my tinfoil hat.
It
protects me from the aliens who are trying to beam evil
messages into
my brain.

When they start running real experiments at the LHC later
this year,
I plan to wrap myself entirely in double layers of heavy
duty
Reynolds Wrap, just in case. It's my understanding that in
addition
to creating black holes, they have a secret scheme for world
domination by encoding subtle messages in perturbations of
the
quantum states of the other high energy particles the LHC
will
produce. Using two layers of foil will cause the particles
to
interfere with each other and thereby scramble the encoded
messages.
(One layer of foil would simply alter the polarization a
little, but
the message would remain intact).

The French have never been happy about losing those blind
wine-
tasting competitions to the California winemakers, so the
LHC plot is
their way to get revenge.

George

Oh mon vieux, tu ne comprends rien..... You've been listening
to Coast-2-Coast too much, you have been brainwashed by your
own people before the Aliens......Heeheee......Donchaknow?

 

[David L. Jones]

"Dave.H" <the1930s@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:9d258a2d-a0da-4809-af3b-98a947ece05d@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

I was looking at a 12 volt regulated power supply at Dick Smith
Electronics cat. number M9935 @ www.dse.com.au for a regen radio I'm
planning on building (http://www.schmarder.com/radios/tube/
1-12af6.htm) but the AU$24 is a bit too high for my liking. I was
thinking of using a center tapped transformer, 6.3-0-6.3V @ 500mA, in
series with a 1.3 watt zener diode, I need help with obtaining 12.6
volts from a center tapped transformer, I never had to do it before.
I thought that the two positive primary leads were connected, I don't
want to blow the transformer if this isn't the case.

Any help appreciated,

Thanks
Dave

Transformer is M2853, and zener diode is Z3543 @ www.dse.com.au

How about $7, delivered to your door:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Switching-Power-Supply-12V-1A-for-CCTV-camera-AU-P24_W0QQitemZ370046177343QQihZ024QQcategoryZ20589QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Dave.

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

| According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
| most frequently damaged by lightning is
| computers with a modem connection
| TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
| connections).
| All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

And this is new information how?


| This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That
| limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems
| downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct
| induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.

Of course. And this is new info?


| A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to
| provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive
| electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.

I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the
building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential
and using a single point of earthing. You can get substantial voltage
difference between different points of earthing even when no lightning
happens to strike anywhere near at all. A ground charge builds up
under a storm, with the opposite polarity of the lower layer of the
cloud base. Now as the storm moves along, what do you think happens
to that ground charge? It moves along, too. But, it actually lags
behind the storm a bit, varying depending on ground conditions, speed
of storm movement, etc. This is one reason why you can often see a
lightning strike jump from the backside of a storm and go laterally
for even as far as several miles, and then hit ground. I have seen
such lightning strikes (a 5 mile one) and seen the damage from ground
currents (melted a wire between two electrodes placed about 1/4 mile
apart along a storm track direction).


|> | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
|> | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
|> | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
|> | equipment, televisions, and computers."
|> |
|> | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
|>
|> Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look?
|
| The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.
|
| But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power
| wires.
|
| A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
| signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
| entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
| suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.

Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one.
I would just ground everything on a board with a big sheet of copper as
grounded backing.


| There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only
| suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor
| and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance
| ground block.

It can be limited to some degree by the grounding block by having an arc
crossover inside. If the voltage exceeds the arc breakdown, you then have
a much lower impedance for center conductor surges to get to ground.


|> Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.
|
| Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.

If you want to see options beyond what SQD has, then do look at CH.
I have downloaded the SQD and CH catalogs, so I can look (but I will
for myself, not for you).


|> The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
|> of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
|> figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
|> level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
|> understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
|> simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not
|> cover all situations or all levels of protection.
|
| I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges
| and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references
| provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you
| seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.

Given your long diatribes, and your fixation on how you respond to others
in an accusatory manner, a lot of your posts go unread even by me.

Maybe what you could do is start a blog. bud-vs-surges.blogspot.com maybe?
Then you can have a collection of links all together in one place where its
easy to refer to them all at once. Or just make a web page.


| You have read little on surges and have said you base your beliefs on
| your experience. Experience shows astrology works.

I've read enough. I've also talked with experts in the field who hold
jobs as college professors in EE departments.


| You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
| the experiment".

I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
the explanations.


| You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection
| Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at
| technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you
| would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific
| explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you
| probably have not read.

The guide I read that you pointed me to simply did not cover the whole topic.
It left out lots of things. Maybe what it covered was all technically correct.
But it was not a useful guide for the purpose of determing what solution is
needed for all situations.

And look carefully at the name "IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee".
This is about DEVICES. Proper surge protection involves MORE than just
devices. If you are in the business of designing a DEVICE, then sure, go
with their advice. If you need to select a DEVICE to fit into an overall
plan of surge protection, then sure, use their information about devices.
But when the issue has a broader scope than just devices, you may need to
recognize that you won't get all your information from one place.


| But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There
| apparently is no expert but you.

I'm not claiming to be an expert. But when people talk about things with
even less knowledge than I have, and especially when what they say contradicts
actual observations, then I know _they_ cannot be an expert (or else there is
some misinformation and the situations are not really a match).

For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
frequency energy issues entirely. It's really a matter of degree. But
there are low cost solutions that can still justify addressing these less
frequent events. For example, a simple small inductor on the power wires
just immediately after the point where the neutral is bonded to ground
and the hot conductors can be clamped to ground under high voltages (MOVs
and/or arc gaps) can force more of the high frequency energy to divert to
ground instead of continuing on to the vulnerable devices.

Right now, all of my computers are wired on a single power outlet and there
is no long term alternate metallic path. Broadband is wireless to another
room where a sacrificial wireless router is attached to the cable modem.
When I add DSL, that will go on another wireless router and a 2nd wireless
bridge will be added to the computer room LAN, on the same power strips,
to access it.

Unfortunately, I'm getting close to the circuit limit. I need another
power circuit. That can create issues. So my current plan is to add a
240 volt circuit. That will be fed through a separate protector, probably
a CH one, next to the panel, and fed to the computer room to a single NEMA
14-20 outlet. I'm looking for a plug-in suppressor to supplement at that
location. I may have to make one from CH or SQD components, since this is
still a 240 volt point. Once that exists, then I can split the circuit to
separate 120 volt strips at short distances.


| You have never provided a source that agrees with you on disputed issues.

Nor do I need to. This is not an issue about trying to get people to agree
with me. It's about knowing a broad enough scope of science to be able to
determine a solution in a _wide_ range of possibilities, and to know when a
given situation really does _not_ match one that a known solution applies to.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

| According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
| most frequently damaged by lightning is
| computers with a modem connection
| TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
| connections).
| All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

And this is new information how?


| This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That
| limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems
| downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct
| induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.

Of course. And this is new info?


| A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to
| provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive
| electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.

I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the
building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential
and using a single point of earthing. You can get substantial voltage
difference between different points of earthing even when no lightning
happens to strike anywhere near at all. A ground charge builds up
under a storm, with the opposite polarity of the lower layer of the
cloud base. Now as the storm moves along, what do you think happens
to that ground charge? It moves along, too. But, it actually lags
behind the storm a bit, varying depending on ground conditions, speed
of storm movement, etc. This is one reason why you can often see a
lightning strike jump from the backside of a storm and go laterally
for even as far as several miles, and then hit ground. I have seen
such lightning strikes (a 5 mile one) and seen the damage from ground
currents (melted a wire between two electrodes placed about 1/4 mile
apart along a storm track direction).


|> | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
|> | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
|> | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
|> | equipment, televisions, and computers."
|> |
|> | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
|>
|> Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look?
|
| The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.
|
| But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power
| wires.
|
| A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
| signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
| entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
| suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.

Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one.
I would just ground everything on a board with a big sheet of copper as
grounded backing.


| There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only
| suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor
| and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance
| ground block.

It can be limited to some degree by the grounding block by having an arc
crossover inside. If the voltage exceeds the arc breakdown, you then have
a much lower impedance for center conductor surges to get to ground.


|> Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.
|
| Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.

If you want to see options beyond what SQD has, then do look at CH.
I have downloaded the SQD and CH catalogs, so I can look (but I will
for myself, not for you).


|> The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
|> of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
|> figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
|> level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
|> understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
|> simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not
|> cover all situations or all levels of protection.
|
| I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges
| and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references
| provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you
| seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.

Given your long diatribes, and your fixation on how you respond to others
in an accusatory manner, a lot of your posts go unread even by me.

Maybe what you could do is start a blog. bud-vs-surges.blogspot.com maybe?
Then you can have a collection of links all together in one place where its
easy to refer to them all at once. Or just make a web page.


| You have read little on surges and have said you base your beliefs on
| your experience. Experience shows astrology works.

I've read enough. I've also talked with experts in the field who hold
jobs as college professors in EE departments.


| You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
| the experiment".

I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
the explanations.


| You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection
| Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at
| technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you
| would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific
| explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you
| probably have not read.

The guide I read that you pointed me to simply did not cover the whole topic.
It left out lots of things. Maybe what it covered was all technically correct.
But it was not a useful guide for the purpose of determing what solution is
needed for all situations.

And look carefully at the name "IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee".
This is about DEVICES. Proper surge protection involves MORE than just
devices. If you are in the business of designing a DEVICE, then sure, go
with their advice. If you need to select a DEVICE to fit into an overall
plan of surge protection, then sure, use their information about devices.
But when the issue has a broader scope than just devices, you may need to
recognize that you won't get all your information from one place.


| But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There
| apparently is no expert but you.

I'm not claiming to be an expert. But when people talk about things with
even less knowledge than I have, and especially when what they say contradicts
actual observations, then I know _they_ cannot be an expert (or else there is
some misinformation and the situations are not really a match).

For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
frequency energy issues entirely. It's really a matter of degree. But
there are low cost solutions that can still justify addressing these less
frequent events. For example, a simple small inductor on the power wires
just immediately after the point where the neutral is bonded to ground
and the hot conductors can be clamped to ground under high voltages (MOVs
and/or arc gaps) can force more of the high frequency energy to divert to
ground instead of continuing on to the vulnerable devices.

Right now, all of my computers are wired on a single power outlet and there
is no long term alternate metallic path. Broadband is wireless to another
room where a sacrificial wireless router is attached to the cable modem.
When I add DSL, that will go on another wireless router and a 2nd wireless
bridge will be added to the computer room LAN, on the same power strips,
to access it.

Unfortunately, I'm getting close to the circuit limit. I need another
power circuit. That can create issues. So my current plan is to add a
240 volt circuit. That will be fed through a separate protector, probably
a CH one, next to the panel, and fed to the computer room to a single NEMA
14-20 outlet. I'm looking for a plug-in suppressor to supplement at that
location. I may have to make one from CH or SQD components, since this is
still a 240 volt point. Once that exists, then I can split the circuit to
separate 120 volt strips at short distances.


| You have never provided a source that agrees with you on disputed issues.

Nor do I need to. This is not an issue about trying to get people to agree
with me. It's about knowing a broad enough scope of science to be able to
determine a solution in a _wide_ range of possibilities, and to know when a
given situation really does _not_ match one that a known solution applies to.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
|
| <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
|
|>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
|>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
|>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
|>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
|>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
|>ones too.
|
| Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a
| salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!

Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing about
entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their rants
are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the first
screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off the
posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
|
| <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
|
|>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
|>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
|>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
|>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
|>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
|>ones too.
|
| Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a
| salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!

Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing about
entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their rants
are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the first
screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off the
posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

[Tantalust]

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fvfqmk125dl@news4.newsguy.com...

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
|
| <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
|
|>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
|>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
|>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
|>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
|>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
|>ones too.
|
| Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime
as a
| salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!

Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing
about
entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their
rants
are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the
first
screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off
the
posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.

Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express?


--
“There’s nothing on it worthwhile, we’re not going to watch it in this
household, and I don’t want it in your intellectual diet.”.
-attributed to Philo T. Farnsworth, by his children

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:fvfqmk125dl@news4.newsguy.com...
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
|> |
|> |>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
|> |>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
|> |>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
|> |>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
|> |>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
|> |>ones too.
|> |
|> | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime
|> as a
|> | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
|>
|> Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing
|> about
|> entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their
|> rants
|> are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the
|> first
|> screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off
|> the
|> posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
|
| Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express?

Not that I know of. But my reader is configured to filter out Googlegroups
due to Google's lack of action to deal with the massive spam floods they let
reach Usenet. Not only is there many times as much spam from Googlegroups
as legitimate posts in the groups I read, but in many, the level of normal
posts has fallen, suggesting that this issue is causing some to abandon Usenet
because of this.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

 

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>
|> | According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
|> | most frequently damaged by lightning is
|> | computers with a modem connection
|> | TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
|> | connections).
|> | All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.
|>
|> And this is new information how?
|
| Irrelevant comment.

Translation: bud doesn't have the answer


|> | This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That
|> | limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems
|> | downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct
|> | induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.
|>
|> Of course. And this is new info?
|
| Irrelevant comment.

Translation: bud doesn't have the answer


|> | A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to
|> | provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive
|> | electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.
|>
|> I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the
|> building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential
|> and using a single point of earthing.
|
| If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what I already
| said below:
| "A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
| signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
| entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
| suppressor above)."
|
| But of course why would you read what someone else wrote.

Maybe because they write it in a hard to read way, or write it addressed
to someone else, or any of many reasons I can make up.

Why don't you make a web page with a complete compilation of all your
positions and suggestions on surge protection, all in one place, made
easy to read.


|> |> | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
|> |> | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
|> |> | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
|> |> | equipment, televisions, and computers."
|> |> |
|> |> | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
|> |>
|> |> Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look?
|> |
|> | The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.
|> |
|> | But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power
|> | wires.
|> |
|> | A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
|> | signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
|> | entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
|> | suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.
|>
|> Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one.
|
| If you would have read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what
| the 1st SquareD suppressor is. In fact right above your reply is "(or
| the combined suppressor above)".
|
| If you read what w_ wrote, trader wouldn?t have to explain what w_ said.

I read very little of what w_ writes.


|> | There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only
|> | suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor
|> | and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance
|> | ground block.
|>
|> It can be limited to some degree by the grounding block by having an arc
|> crossover inside. If the voltage exceeds the arc breakdown, you then have
|> a much lower impedance for center conductor surges to get to ground.
|
| What is the breakdown voltage? What is the immunity level of a TV tuner?
| Gas discharge tubes, among other devices, are used because they clamp at
| a low voltage.

It's a matter of choosing the right device that won't hinder the desired
signal, but still provides the desired level of protection.

This is one reason I'd like to find a pair of devices, one a modulator,
one a demodulator, that can put the entire spectrum of cable TV on a
fiber optic "cable".


|> |> Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.
|> |
|> | Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.
|>
|> If you want to see options beyond what SQD has, then do look at CH.
|> I have downloaded the SQD and CH catalogs, so I can look (but I will
|> for myself, not for you).
|
| If you would read what has been written you would not make dumb
| comments. My original response was to w_. My point was one of w_'s
| "responsible manufacturers" (CH) makes plug?in suppressors. "I don?t
| really care" what else CH has. You brought it up. I am not, and was not,
| interested.

OK.


|> |> The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
|> |> of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
|> |> figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
|> |> level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
|> |> understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
|> |> simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not
|> |> cover all situations or all levels of protection.
|> |
|> | I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges
|> | and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references
|> | provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you
|> | seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.
|>
|> Given your long diatribes, and your fixation on how you respond to others
|> in an accusatory manner, a lot of your posts go unread even by me.
|
| Apparently not enough of my posts go unread by you.

A lot just get glossed over.


| I have tried to respond to your posts in other threads on a technical level.
| In fact your post in this thread started out hostile.

I don't even see the threads anymore. I just see poorly written posts.


|> | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
|> | the experiment".
|>
|> I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
|> the explanations.
|
| Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
| reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
| of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
| for which you have no supporting cite.

You are likely to never see any citation that attests to what I believe.


|> | You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection
|> | Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at
|> | technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you
|> | would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific
|> | explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you
|> | probably have not read.
|>
|> The guide I read that you pointed me to simply did not cover the whole topic.
|> It left out lots of things. Maybe what it covered was all technically correct.
|> But it was not a useful guide for the purpose of determing what solution is
|> needed for all situations.
|
| Wow - what a shortcoming. It isn't a 1000 page book.

Maybe it should have been.


|> And look carefully at the name "IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee".
|> This is about DEVICES. Proper surge protection involves MORE than just
|> devices. If you are in the business of designing a DEVICE, then sure, go
|> with their advice. If you need to select a DEVICE to fit into an overall
|> plan of surge protection, then sure, use their information about devices.
|> But when the issue has a broader scope than just devices, you may need to
|> recognize that you won't get all your information from one place.
|
| If you had read what I have written it is obvious I have gotten
| information from many places.

And mixed it up quite well.


| And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
| by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
| apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
| with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.

I've _met_ electrical engineers that are idiots. I've met people in a
lot of other fields that are idiots.

I don't know if the authors of what you have read are idiots. Maybe they
are just not writing as broadly as you think they are.


| That assumes you actually read the guide. Unlikely, since you said it
| has no "scientific explanations". But what could you learn from mere
| experts.

I read it long ago when you linked it somewhere. I forget which place it
was.


|> | But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There
|> | apparently is no expert but you.
|>
|> I'm not claiming to be an expert. But when people talk about things with
|> even less knowledge than I have, and especially when what they say contradicts
|> actual observations, then I know _they_ cannot be an expert (or else there is
|> some misinformation and the situations are not really a match).
|
| Translation - Phil is smarter than the experts.

I'm not claiming to be an expert. Yet you think I am?


|> For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
|> less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
|> of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
|> within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
|> but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
|> frequency energy issues entirely.
|
| Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
| papers on surges and suppression. In one of them he wrote:
| "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
| often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
| systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
| concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
| the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
| the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
| classical transmission line behavior."
| Residential branch circuits aren't 200m.
|
| Your response: "Then he flubbed the experiment." In another case you
| have said Martzloff had a hidden agenda.

I addressed this one elsewhere. You seem to have misunderstood him.
He did not say that wiring systems do not exhibit transmission line
characteristics. Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases. What he
says in what you quoted is correct. The way you have used it is not.


| You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
| times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
| derived.

So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?

I didn't see where you quoted anything by IEEE or its experts that specify
actual rise times of any kind of surge, induced or otherwise.


| One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
| rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
| with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don?t get transmission line
| effects at 100kHz.

I agree that you don't get transmission line effects under 100 kHz for 200m
wires ... of any significance to worry about for surge matters.

OTOH, you have not shown how even if an 8 microsecond rise time is significant
as a representative case, that it can't get shorter than that in severe cases.
or even a higher rise voltage (which hasn't even been specified at all here).


| You still have never provided a cite that supports your opinion.

You haven't, either, in many cases. You've given cites that support something
else in some cases. It's clear you don't _understand_ the science involved.
I'm sure Martzloff does. It's obvious that you don't.


| Summarizing:
| Phil doesn't read much of what you write (or cited sources).
| Phil is smarter than electrical engineers who are experts in the field.

That's YOUR opinion. Now, are you going to offer a cite to support THAT?

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |