Chip with simple program for Toy

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) |
 
w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:

... trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
sufficient expertise.
w_tom reminds me of Yoda :)

... no earth ground means no effective protection.
Bullshit. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.

Nick
 
w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:

... trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
sufficient expertise.
w_tom reminds me of Yoda :)

... no earth ground means no effective protection.
Bullshit. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.

Nick
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
| On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> put
| finger to keyboard and composed:
|
|>On May 1, 2:18?pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>> Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
|>> damages from from surges and lightning offer non such ?claim or
|>> warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
|>> step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
|>> times, anything you do helps a bit.
|>
|> Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
|>destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
|>through it.
|
| Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
| through the TV?

A surge will take _every_ path. Where that ends up with a voltage difference
somewhere, anywhere, that exceeds the device breakdown voltage, then you will
have current flow across there. And if that breakdown means damage, as it
would for things like a CMOS circuit component, the device would be damaged.

--
|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.engineering.electrical nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
| w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:
|
|>... trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
|>part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
|>knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
|>citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
|>sufficient expertise.
|
| w_tom reminds me of Yoda :)
|
|>... no earth ground means no effective protection.
|
| Bullshit. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.

The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
are not overlapping in what they talk about.

One can be fairly safe by having all the communications come in over fiber,
and get power by a motor driving a heavy duty fiberglass axle driving a
generator. Even then, there is still the risk of a direct lightning strike.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
 
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fvgri141nb@news1.newsguy.com...
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:fvfqmk125dl@news4.newsguy.com...
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust <tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
|> |
|> | <trader4@optonline.net> wrote
|> |
|> |>Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
|> |>last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
|> |>of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
|> |>companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
|> |>it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell
plug-in
|> |>ones too.
|> |
|> | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working
overtime
|> as a
|> | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
|
|> Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing
|> about
|> entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their
|> rants
|> are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the
|> first
|> screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing
off
|> the
|> posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
|
| Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express?

Not that I know of. But my reader is configured to filter out
Googlegroups
due to Google's lack of action to deal with the massive spam floods they
let
reach Usenet. Not only is there many times as much spam from Googlegroups
as legitimate posts in the groups I read, but in many, the level of normal
posts has fallen, suggesting that this issue is causing some to abandon
Usenet
because of this.
Thanks for the info.
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
| On 3 May 2008 09:46:09 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net put finger to
| keyboard and composed:
|
|>In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
|>| On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> put
|>| finger to keyboard and composed:
|>|
|>|>On May 1, 2:18?pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>|>> Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
|>|>> damages from from surges and lightning offer non such ?claim or
|>|>> warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
|>|>> step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
|>|>> times, anything you do helps a bit.
|>|>
|>|> Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
|>|>destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
|>|>through it.
|>|
|>| Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
|>| through the TV?
|>
|>A surge will take _every_ path. Where that ends up with a voltage difference
|>somewhere, anywhere, that exceeds the device breakdown voltage, then you will
|>have current flow across there. And if that breakdown means damage, as it
|>would for things like a CMOS circuit component, the device would be damaged.
|
| True but irrelevant to my question. I wanted specific examples in
| support of the claim that "some things installed will decrease
| protection".

Installing something that ends up creating a situation where you will have a
big voltage difference where you otherwise would not is such an example.


| A strike on the mains would be clamped to the earth pin by MOVs. It
| may still be that the antenna provides a second path to earth which
| would mean that the TV could be damaged that way. However, the absence
| of an earth pin would result in an even higher differential voltage
| between mains and antenna which would mean an even greater likelihood
| of damage. OTOH, if the strike arrived via the antenna, then the
| presence or absence of the earth pin should make very little
| difference AFAICS.

The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping. The surge will
take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
MOVs. In general, about 50% will go each way. That can vary at higher
frequencies.

The antenna "second path to earth" could provide that difference in voltage
that can lead to substantial and damaging current. However, if you bring
the antenna feedline in at the point electric power comes in, and ground
everything in common, then whatever voltage rise you get in low frequencies
will be fairly equal between power connection and antenna connection. The
strike coming in on the antenna is not really any different, except in the
high frequencies. The antenna feedline does not degrade the high frequencies
as much as the power lines.

The high frequencies can still be an issue. They are less common so if you
are just trying to reduce your risk then this is a good start. Most energy
is in lower frequencies (though this varies by means of entry). But there
are ways to deal with the high frequency energy as well, if you want to go
that far. It just depends on how much you want to spend to get how much
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 Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:

| I experienced a direct lightning strike on a 7 story building. In the
| basement there was a large(I mean LARGE) scale data center which I was
| in charge of.
| The strike clobbered all the data stored in mass storage sub system
| requiring 3 days' total system restore. I think when surge is BIG,
| nothing can be protected from it.

The majority of data centers are protected from a lightning strike only at a
minimal level. I disagree about there being nothing to protect from "BIG"
strikes. But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on it.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

| Bullshit. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
| flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
| continue to spout your ignorance and lies.

Not true.

When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.

You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
circuit".

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

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

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

Nor do I need to...
You misspelled "cause I ain't got none".
 
Michael,

Maybe I misunderstood your comment.
Where you speaking about a specific line of signal generators?

I have two different signal/function generators here at home (old CREI
home-built and BK 4040) and two more at school (Insterstate F34 and HP
33120A), none of which have any problem driving an LED/current limiting
resistor (typically 220 ohms, or more) combination. The HP and the BK are
rated at 10Vpp into a 50-ohm load and 20Vpp into an open (or 600-ohm) load.
Even the old F34 is rated at greater than 2Vpp, depending on waveform,
impedance, and whether or not symmetrical about zero.

I have used many others over the past too many years and I don't recall
having problems driving any small diode, including LEDs.

I did just test the two here at home to be sure the specs weren't mis-typed.


Me too - 20 years worth - retired 1986

Richard


"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:481DC8A7.E856AEA0@earthlink.net...
entropy429@yahoo.com wrote:

Is there a upper limit as to how fast you can pulse an led say a
ordinary red led 2v v forward,20mA current. I'm try to drive it with a
signal generator,and pick up the flashes with a sensor..I went through
the book that came with my generator and there isn't a word in there
about a maximum current caution with the generator I'm using a current
resistor but don't know if I'm exceeding the max.the led flashes
erratically..Any help? thanks jf


What kind of signal generator are you using? Most don't put out 2
volts, or 20 mA.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Mike Tomlinson <mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:

| The same thing said eight times. Part of w_tom's modus operandi -
| repeat something enough times and it must be true.

That's a common MO of anyone arguing any point where the other party is not
accepting it. It happens on all sides. Nothing significant from this bit
of "info". Move along.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|
|>| You have never provided a source that agrees with you on
|>| disputed issues.
|>
|> Nor do I need to...
|
| You misspelled "cause I ain't got none".

My sources predate the internet being the vast source of info it is today.
They include discussions with EE professors, and observing the work of
researchers. They also include analysis of events I've experienced, and
also events described that others experienced. And some comes from an old
ancient technology called a book (which I didn't get to keep because it
came from a library). My interest in it was always about the physics of how
it happens.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|> | Bullshit. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
|> | flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
|> | continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
|>
|> Not true.
|>
|> When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
|> out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
|> complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
|> It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
|> that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
|> a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|>
|> You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
|> you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
|> The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
|> circuit".
|
|
| Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
| Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
| claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
| difference.

1. I *am* an amateur radio operator and I *do* know the difference.

2. Electromotive force is not a factor here, beyond what it might do to cause
physical motion of wires during a surge (not impossible, but not usually
considered).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
|> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>
|>>In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>>
|>>| Bullshit. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
|>>| flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
|>>| continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
|>>
|>>Not true.
|>>
|>>When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
|>>out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
|>>complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
|>>It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
|>>that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
|>>a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|>>
|>>You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
|>>you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
|>>The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
|>>circuit".
|>
|>
|>
|> Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
|> Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
|> claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
|> difference.
|>
|>
| Hi,
| Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
| Mine is VE6CGX.

It can be seen in my signature on my posts.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
 
"w_tom" wrote:
Will a high impedance stop or absorb what three miles of sky
could not? Of course not. Obviously not. And yet some just
know otherwise. Will that silly little one inch part inside a plug-in
protector stop what three miles of sky could not? Of course not.

As always, "w_tom" ignores that the high voltages that short out
"3 miles of sky" will short out the underground power lines which
enter my building and buildings all over America. Anything able to
leap "3 miles of sky" will leap the fraction of an inch between the
power lines and the earthed metal conduit. What is left will be a
much lower voltage spike that can be handled by the average
"plug-in protector".

*TimDaniels*
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|> Tony Hwang wrote:
|>
|>>Hi,
|>>Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
|>>Mine is VE6CGX.
|>
|>
|>
|> It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
|>
|>
| Hmmm,
| That is sign format of novice class.

Which means my first ticket was novice. I upgraded a month after that.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
 
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
|> Tony Hwang wrote:
|>
|>>Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|>>
|>>>Tony Hwang wrote:
|>>>
|>>>
|>>>>Hi,
|>>>>Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
|>>>>Mine is VE6CGX.
|>>>
|>>>
|>>>
|>>> It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
|>>>
|>>>
|>>
|>>Hmmm,
|>>That is sign format of novice class.
|>
|>
|>
|> In more than one way. Read some of the other crap he's posted on
|> news:alt.engineering.electrical if you have a strong stomach.
|>
|>
| Hmmm,
| Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
| dropped.

I've never even used CB.

--
|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 Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|>
|> | Bullshit. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
|> | flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
|> | continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
|>
|> Not true.
|>
|> When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
|> out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
|> complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
|> It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
|> that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
|> a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|>
|> You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
|> you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
|> The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
|> circuit".
|>
| Hmmm,
| You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and
| voltage(poential) Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we have to
| rewrite Ohm's law. Show your credential to make a stamement like that.
| Shameful.

Your knowledge of electricity shows to be a very basic level. You completely
lack an understanding of how electricity does flow. You have no concept at all
of transmission lines (and Michael A. Terrell seems to have forgotten his).
Credentials have nothing to do with whether a statement is correct or not.
Mine is correct but you don't have sufficient background to even understand it.

--
|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) |
 
"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:131decf4-6a8d-42e8-a973-b71a30a7f862@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 12:21 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
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.

If trader read what was posted rather than entertain his
assumptions, then trader would understand appliances contain internal
protection. When trader misread, then trader reclessly invented MOVs
to provide internal protection. What w_tom posted is not found in
trader's wild speculation.

With a grasp of technology, then trader would have known industry
standard numbers that defined internal electronics protection even 35
years ago. Trader does not know these numbers. Trader then assumed
that protection must be provided by MOVs. Trader - learn technology
BEFORE knowing everything. You have no idea of protection inside all
appliances. By reading reclessly and by using wild speculation and
ignorance, trader assumes protection must be provided by MOVs.

Protection inside appliances is integrated within appliance
design. Internal appliance protection that may be overwhelmed if a
'whole house' protector is not installed and properly earthed.
Nothing in that paragraph discusses MOVs. MOVs inside appliances is
another trader 'wild speculation' due to knowledge without first
learning the technology.

We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors short
(ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Simple stuff
that so confused trader. trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read what
was posted. trader again demonstrates insufficient technical
kowledge justifies his mockery and insult. Mythical MOV inside
appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to see;
not what is posted.

MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. Had trader read what
was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent
fictional MOVs inside appliances.

Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down to people
as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?

You read sometimes like one of those old children's "Golden Books".
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top