Chip with simple program for Toy

[Timothy Daniels]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble.
I am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed
his or _wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of
dollars worth of damage. I had a studio building and STL tower
in Leesburg Florida hit by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete
from the building where the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical.
It WAS an excellent example of _wacko_tom's UFER ground,
before the steel vaporized inside damp concrete. 95% of the damage
was caused by the EMP.

[ElectoMagnetic Pulse]

I lost the 11 GHz Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system,
all the computer terminals, and had some minor problems with
other electronics. It turned out that the dead terminals all had high
ESR electrolytics,

[Equivalent Series Resistance - the total of all internal resistances
of a capacitor measured in Ohms.]

and that they were working because they were all on UPS

[Uninterruptible Power Supply]

before the strike took out all the electricity. The power 1A2 supply
needed some of the weird WE fuses, one KTU card and was back
in service. The STL

[Studio-to-Transmitter Link (see http://www.fmamtv.com/rdstl.html)]

was mounted on the tower in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO

[Local Oscillator]

module. It was 20 years old, and at least 10 years obsolete, so it
needed that module updated, anyway.

I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a
STL transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for
repair & upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I
waited for the new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we
had been hit. Then I moved the microwave racks to a closet in the
corner of the building, and used 4" EMT

[Electrical Metallic Tubing, i.e. metal conduit]

between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
have had strikes since then, but no problems.

Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
equipment in use?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Tony Hwang" wrote:

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.

You're forgetting RF frequencies - which can flow (back
and forth) quite readily in an open circuit such as a transmitter
tower, whip antenna, or transmission line, or building power
wiring, steel frame, etc.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Tony Hwang" wrote:

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.

You're forgetting RF frequencies - which can flow (back
and forth) quite readily in an open circuit such as a transmitter
tower, whip antenna, or transmission line, or building power
wiring, steel frame, etc.

*TimDaniels*

 

In alt.engineering.electrical w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:

| Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
| can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
| protects from surges that rarely damage appliances. As demonstrated
| repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
| typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
| problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.

I don't agree with that assessment of the plug-in protector. If the
appliance has its own MOVs to protect stuff, then this would be true.
Not all do. Some appliances are more sensitive than others. It just
depends on what kind of surge is arriving, and where from. If it is
differential mode on the power wires, the plug-in protector can do
some important protection. Even with whole house protection in place,
you can have some energy get past it, and the surge can be induced into
the building wiring. Usually the induced surge is common mode, which
by itself is less of a problem. But if the appliance is connected to
more than one wiring, such as a computer with modem, then induced
surges can be more of a problem because of the difference between the
wiring. If the plug-in surge protector has them all attached at one
point, that should serve to equalize the voltage in most cases enough
to avoid damage.


| So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
| appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
| entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
| install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.

The entrance protection, which works a lot better if earthed, is very
important for the big surges arriving on the service wiring. Being
earthed, it will sink most of the low frequency energy. That leaves
a partial surge that can still propogate beyond that point, as well as
induced surges which the entrance protection didn't even get a shot at.


| If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
| money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
| destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
| better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
| by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?

There is certainly a best "complete protection". I agreed that when
Bud focuses on one type of protection and calls it effective, he is
merely toying with the word "effective". It is better than nothing.
It can even reduce the number of damaging incidents a lot. But it is
not "complete effectiveness". But neither is "whole house" protection.

What one needs for the best is "everywhere protection".


| If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
| created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.

There are tradeoffs. Bud is focusing on the low frequency energy and
seems to think that is all there us because a lot of documents focus
on it because more energy is in the low frequencies. Also, surges
that come from a greater distance have the higher frequencies reduced.


| Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
| protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
| That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
| another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
| house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
| installed.

It depends. The surge consisting of primarly low frequency energy
(under 1 MHz) gets distributed around more evenly. The advantage is
that leaves less voltage differences between various wires. This is
an advantage to devices connected to more than one wire, like a TV
with cable. Without it, the surge arriving in common mode on power
(the plug-in suppressor won't stop that) will go through the TV and
on to the cable, generally zapping the tuner front end stage. But
if the cable is connected in parallel to the plug-in protector, then
the cable and power are at about the same voltage. The risk of damage
is much less that way. This applies to low frequency energy, which is
the more common. OTOH, if high frequency energy is coming in, such as
a direct strike on the mast of the power service drop, with shorter
branch circuit wires in the house, then the high frequency energy can
cross over from the power to the cable and zap the front end stage
just from the fast rising wavefront.

It's a give and take. Adding the plug-in surge protector connected to
all wires reduces certain surge effects, and increases others. The
advantage is gained when what you decrease is more common than what you
increase.

Bud either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it. It does
get attenuated quickly on wiring that has inductance. When the surge
is in common mode, as it will be in the wiring from most direct strikes,
the inductance on the wire is substantial, and the high frequencies will
be attenuated quickly. But, once _part_ of that energy is diverted to
ground on _one_ of the wires (e.g. the neutral that is grounded), then
_part_ of the surge is now differential (or transverse) mode, and that
part can propogate high frequency energy further on wire _pairs_.

One important way to protect against high frequency energy is to have
inductive blockage. That's practical to do on power lines. It can be
done on phone, but it has to be reduced if DSL is being used. There
are special DSL-specific telephone surge protectors that have low pass
filters to the service and high pass filters to ground with a cutoff
frequency above the DSL level. Othewise they can do the cutoff way
lower just above the voice level.


| Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
| surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
| many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
| by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
| will do no harm".

Actually, it is possible to make an absorption-type protector. It is
not a trivial thing, and you would never want to do so inside a house.
I have built one. It consisted of a zig-zag phone wire running through
a large 8 inch PVC pipe filled with steel wool. At one end going to
the building, was a lot of inductance (the phone wire wrapped through
half a dozen large ferrite cores). The whole thing was buried in the
ground. It took a hit a few months later and was destroyed. The phone
wire was burned up. The steel wool was gone. The pipe was shattered.
The computer the phone line was connected to was undamaged.

Oh, it did have some diversion, as well. A pair of #12 copper wires was
run along inside the pipe, running into ground several feet on each end.
Those wires survived the event.


| Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
| the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
| damage ? that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
| Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
| point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
| this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
| and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.

There are lot of different types of surges that cause damage. There is no
one protection that can defeat them all.


| Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don?t seek earth
| ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
| house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
| adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
| it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
| does not cause damage.

He is partially right. The common mode does "seek ground" in the sense that
the big difference is there. The differential mode is just propogating where
it can (and it can go further). Both can consist of low (more often, and more
energy) frequency and high frequency.

Connect two TVs to an antenna. Connect the chassis of ONE of them to ground.
The one with the ground connection will be more often damaged alone. But
there are also times when the other one can be damaged alone. Often both
will be damaged. It depends on things like whether the surge in the wire
is induced or direct. It depends on if you have additional lightning
arrestors on that wire (which can even change common mode to differential
mode and change which TV will be damaged).

The two of you are arguing entirely different aspects of surge issues that
has some degree of overlap. And it seems both of you have an incomplete
understanding of all the possible issues (or at least have only expressed
point regarding said subsets).

There is no simple answer to surge protection. There are some good practices.

--
|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 w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:

| Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
| can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
| protects from surges that rarely damage appliances. As demonstrated
| repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
| typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
| problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.

I don't agree with that assessment of the plug-in protector. If the
appliance has its own MOVs to protect stuff, then this would be true.
Not all do. Some appliances are more sensitive than others. It just
depends on what kind of surge is arriving, and where from. If it is
differential mode on the power wires, the plug-in protector can do
some important protection. Even with whole house protection in place,
you can have some energy get past it, and the surge can be induced into
the building wiring. Usually the induced surge is common mode, which
by itself is less of a problem. But if the appliance is connected to
more than one wiring, such as a computer with modem, then induced
surges can be more of a problem because of the difference between the
wiring. If the plug-in surge protector has them all attached at one
point, that should serve to equalize the voltage in most cases enough
to avoid damage.


| So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
| appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
| entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
| install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.

The entrance protection, which works a lot better if earthed, is very
important for the big surges arriving on the service wiring. Being
earthed, it will sink most of the low frequency energy. That leaves
a partial surge that can still propogate beyond that point, as well as
induced surges which the entrance protection didn't even get a shot at.


| If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
| money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
| destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
| better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
| by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?

There is certainly a best "complete protection". I agreed that when
Bud focuses on one type of protection and calls it effective, he is
merely toying with the word "effective". It is better than nothing.
It can even reduce the number of damaging incidents a lot. But it is
not "complete effectiveness". But neither is "whole house" protection.

What one needs for the best is "everywhere protection".


| If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
| created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.

There are tradeoffs. Bud is focusing on the low frequency energy and
seems to think that is all there us because a lot of documents focus
on it because more energy is in the low frequencies. Also, surges
that come from a greater distance have the higher frequencies reduced.


| Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
| protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
| That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
| another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
| house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
| installed.

It depends. The surge consisting of primarly low frequency energy
(under 1 MHz) gets distributed around more evenly. The advantage is
that leaves less voltage differences between various wires. This is
an advantage to devices connected to more than one wire, like a TV
with cable. Without it, the surge arriving in common mode on power
(the plug-in suppressor won't stop that) will go through the TV and
on to the cable, generally zapping the tuner front end stage. But
if the cable is connected in parallel to the plug-in protector, then
the cable and power are at about the same voltage. The risk of damage
is much less that way. This applies to low frequency energy, which is
the more common. OTOH, if high frequency energy is coming in, such as
a direct strike on the mast of the power service drop, with shorter
branch circuit wires in the house, then the high frequency energy can
cross over from the power to the cable and zap the front end stage
just from the fast rising wavefront.

It's a give and take. Adding the plug-in surge protector connected to
all wires reduces certain surge effects, and increases others. The
advantage is gained when what you decrease is more common than what you
increase.

Bud either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it. It does
get attenuated quickly on wiring that has inductance. When the surge
is in common mode, as it will be in the wiring from most direct strikes,
the inductance on the wire is substantial, and the high frequencies will
be attenuated quickly. But, once _part_ of that energy is diverted to
ground on _one_ of the wires (e.g. the neutral that is grounded), then
_part_ of the surge is now differential (or transverse) mode, and that
part can propogate high frequency energy further on wire _pairs_.

One important way to protect against high frequency energy is to have
inductive blockage. That's practical to do on power lines. It can be
done on phone, but it has to be reduced if DSL is being used. There
are special DSL-specific telephone surge protectors that have low pass
filters to the service and high pass filters to ground with a cutoff
frequency above the DSL level. Othewise they can do the cutoff way
lower just above the voice level.


| Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
| surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
| many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
| by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
| will do no harm".

Actually, it is possible to make an absorption-type protector. It is
not a trivial thing, and you would never want to do so inside a house.
I have built one. It consisted of a zig-zag phone wire running through
a large 8 inch PVC pipe filled with steel wool. At one end going to
the building, was a lot of inductance (the phone wire wrapped through
half a dozen large ferrite cores). The whole thing was buried in the
ground. It took a hit a few months later and was destroyed. The phone
wire was burned up. The steel wool was gone. The pipe was shattered.
The computer the phone line was connected to was undamaged.

Oh, it did have some diversion, as well. A pair of #12 copper wires was
run along inside the pipe, running into ground several feet on each end.
Those wires survived the event.


| Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
| the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
| damage ? that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
| Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
| point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
| this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
| and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.

There are lot of different types of surges that cause damage. There is no
one protection that can defeat them all.


| Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don?t seek earth
| ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
| house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
| adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
| it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
| does not cause damage.

He is partially right. The common mode does "seek ground" in the sense that
the big difference is there. The differential mode is just propogating where
it can (and it can go further). Both can consist of low (more often, and more
energy) frequency and high frequency.

Connect two TVs to an antenna. Connect the chassis of ONE of them to ground.
The one with the ground connection will be more often damaged alone. But
there are also times when the other one can be damaged alone. Often both
will be damaged. It depends on things like whether the surge in the wire
is induced or direct. It depends on if you have additional lightning
arrestors on that wire (which can even change common mode to differential
mode and change which TV will be damaged).

The two of you are arguing entirely different aspects of surge issues that
has some degree of overlap. And it seems both of you have an incomplete
understanding of all the possible issues (or at least have only expressed
point regarding said subsets).

There is no simple answer to surge protection. There are some good practices.

--
|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 Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:

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

It does not always make the 2nd leap to ground. There is not always a metal
conduit available. I've seen such strikes.

--
|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 Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:

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

It does not always make the 2nd leap to ground. There is not always a metal
conduit available. I've seen such strikes.

--
|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 Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| Tony Hwang wrote:
|>
|> Hmmm,
|> Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
|> dropped.
|
|
| Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
| All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
| tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
| am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or

Google for Michael A. Terrell's past posts and you will see he is more of
a person with social problems that prefers to find ways to attack people
at a personal level, rather that make his "disputes" with the specific
points being presented. I don't cave in to such attacks and he apparently
eventually realized that and figured that if he didn't read my posts at all,
he would not be tempted to make more personal attacks.

What he can't know is what would happen if he followed _any_ advice given on
the net. Since he didn't, there was no such test. He is merely speculating.
And he didn't seem to fully grasp all that was said, since his responses were
sometimes in reference to things not actually said. Whether he misread what
was said in those instances, or lacked the understanding needed, I do not
know.

--
|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 Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|
| Tony Hwang wrote:
|>
|> Hmmm,
|> Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
|> dropped.
|
|
| Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
| All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
| tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
| am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or

Google for Michael A. Terrell's past posts and you will see he is more of
a person with social problems that prefers to find ways to attack people
at a personal level, rather that make his "disputes" with the specific
points being presented. I don't cave in to such attacks and he apparently
eventually realized that and figured that if he didn't read my posts at all,
he would not be tempted to make more personal attacks.

What he can't know is what would happen if he followed _any_ advice given on
the net. Since he didn't, there was no such test. He is merely speculating.
And he didn't seem to fully grasp all that was said, since his responses were
sometimes in reference to things not actually said. Whether he misread what
was said in those instances, or lacked the understanding needed, I do not
know.

--
|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 Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:

| Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
| protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
| I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
| buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
| surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
| equipment in use?

How much money are you willing to spend?

--
|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 Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:

| Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
| protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
| I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
| buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
| surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
| equipment in use?

How much money are you willing to spend?

--
|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 VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:

| Actually, a real current will flow until the line's capacitance is
| charged to the source voltage. When the source is removed, the energy
| involved will remain until it is leaked off through the inter-wire
| resistance. If the source is AC, no net energy will "flow", except that
| lost in the inter-wire resistance. If the line length is long enough at
| the frequency involved, reflections from the end of an incorrectly
| terminated transmission line will return to dissipate energy in the
| source resistance.

That reflection even happens with DC. When the switch closes, you have a
rising wavefront leading the chargeup of the line. Unless the far end has
a perfectly matched load, that wavefront will reflect back. This is in
fact how a lot of very early radio transmissions were tuned, with the
"switch" being a noisy spark gap, and the "line" being a long wire antenna
cut to a specific length. You don't even need to have 2 conductors.


| --
| Virg Wall, P.E.
| K6EVE

They seem to not believe me because I am a "mere amateur". You might suffer
the same fate from some of them (I won't name names; it's not hard to figure
out who they are).

--
|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 VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:

| Actually, a real current will flow until the line's capacitance is
| charged to the source voltage. When the source is removed, the energy
| involved will remain until it is leaked off through the inter-wire
| resistance. If the source is AC, no net energy will "flow", except that
| lost in the inter-wire resistance. If the line length is long enough at
| the frequency involved, reflections from the end of an incorrectly
| terminated transmission line will return to dissipate energy in the
| source resistance.

That reflection even happens with DC. When the switch closes, you have a
rising wavefront leading the chargeup of the line. Unless the far end has
a perfectly matched load, that wavefront will reflect back. This is in
fact how a lot of very early radio transmissions were tuned, with the
"switch" being a noisy spark gap, and the "line" being a long wire antenna
cut to a specific length. You don't even need to have 2 conductors.


| --
| Virg Wall, P.E.
| K6EVE

They seem to not believe me because I am a "mere amateur". You might suffer
the same fate from some of them (I won't name names; it's not hard to figure
out who they are).

--
|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 Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:
| "Tony Hwang" wrote:
|> 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.
|
|
| You're forgetting RF frequencies - which can flow (back
| and forth) quite readily in an open circuit such as a transmitter
| tower, whip antenna, or transmission line, or building power
| wiring, steel frame, etc.

I think they intentionally ignored it. Well, maybe Mr. Terrell actually
forgot.

--
|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 Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:
| "Tony Hwang" wrote:
|> 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.
|
|
| You're forgetting RF frequencies - which can flow (back
| and forth) quite readily in an open circuit such as a transmitter
| tower, whip antenna, or transmission line, or building power
| wiring, steel frame, etc.

I think they intentionally ignored it. Well, maybe Mr. Terrell actually
forgot.

--
|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 Tantalust <Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
| <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.

I should clarify that where I said "many times as much spam from Googlegroups
as legitimate posts in the groups I read" I was referring to legitimate posts
ALSO FROM Googlegroups (the ones I would lose by blocking). In some cases the
spam truly was in excess of ALL legitimate posts. As it turns out, my newsreader
will still show the killed posts with a "K" in the threading displays. So if
someone followed them, or they followed one of mine, I can at least pick it.
But the normal tabbing through new posts still skips them.

--
|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 Tantalust <Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
| <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.

I should clarify that where I said "many times as much spam from Googlegroups
as legitimate posts in the groups I read" I was referring to legitimate posts
ALSO FROM Googlegroups (the ones I would lose by blocking). In some cases the
spam truly was in excess of ALL legitimate posts. As it turns out, my newsreader
will still show the killed posts with a "K" in the threading displays. So if
someone followed them, or they followed one of mine, I can at least pick it.
But the normal tabbing through new posts still skips them.

--
|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 "nobody >" <usenetharvested@aol.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:
|>
|> | Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
|> | protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
|> | I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
|> | buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
|> | surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
|> | equipment in use?
|>
|> How much money are you willing to spend?
|>
|
| The only thing I can think of that comes close is to have a heavy
| motor/generator set with a HUGE flywheel sitting in the basement.

How about driving a generator in the basement with either a heavy fiberglass
axle rod driven at some distance by a (sacrificial) motor, or by a fluid that
does not conduct electricity through a turbine system, similarly driven by a
motor/pump at some distance.

--
|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 Leonard Caillouet <nospam@noway.com> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:fvjhvk016vr@news5.newsguy.com...
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
|
|>
|> 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.
|
| Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
| impedance of each direction? When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
| very low impedance.

There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
the impedance. It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
there.

There are two kinds of impedance to deal with here. The first (literally)
is the characteristic impedance. At the point of the MOVs themselves, it
will be about the same each way, but it can vary some at higher frequencies.
It depends on the way the MOVs and the connections with them are constructed.

The second is the net impedance of the path beyond the MOV connections.
That impedance is not what I am talking about in my prior statement. Yes,
it plays a part, but it is not infliienced by the MOVs. It would be the
same if you simply shorted the MOVs with a wire (though that certainly
causes other things to not work, so that isn't how protection is done).

Ultimately you do have to consider the _whole_ system to get an accurate view
of exactly what will happen. Generally this is impractical. What you have
to do is understand what can happen with the variations, and try to change
things to make the happenings do what you prefer (e.g. avoid damage to the
protected devices).

One example involved the power wiring. There should be a point where you
have the neutral grounded, and heavy duty MOVs between each hot wire (be
that 1, 2 or 3) and the grounded wire, and between individual hot wires as
well. The grounded wire (referred to as neutral, but incorrectly in some
cases, even though this is the common referral) would be directly connected
to the path to ground. That connection should be with the least impedance
you can possibly get, within your cost/risk criteria. That means a short
and/or heavy conductor. Short to make it more effective at higher frequencies
by reducing inductive impedance. Heavy to handle a greater current flow.
Much of the surge can now take this path to ground. But not all of it will.
To maximize what will take the path to ground, and minimize what goes to the
building loads/devices that could be damaged, you need to have an increased
impedance on that path. Clearly resistors are not workable since that stops
the power itself, which you do not want to impede. What can work is a low
pass filter primarily an inductor. It needs to be made to have very little
effect at 60 Hz and below, yet block energy/power above that as much as is
possible (again, within your cost/risk criteria). The combination of these
things can limit the surge that reaches protected devices to a tiny fraction
of its original 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.engineering.electrical Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
|> Tony Hwang wrote:
|>
|>>Hmmm,
|>>Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
|>>dropped.
|>
|>
|>
|> Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
|> All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
|> tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
|> am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or
|> _wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of dollars worth of
|> damage. I had a studio building and STL tower in Leesburg Florida hit
|> by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete from the building where
|> the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical. It WAS an excellent example
|> of _wacko_tom's UFER ground, before the steel vaporized inside damp
|> concrete. 95% of the damage was caused by the EMP. I lost the 11 GHz
|> Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system, all the computer terminals,
|> and had some minor problems with other electronics. It turned out that
|> the dead terminals all had high ESR electrolytics, and that they were
|> working because they were all on UPS before the strike took out all the
|> electricity. The power 1A2 supply needed some of the weird WE fuses,
|> one KTU card and was back in service. The STL was mounted on the tower
|> in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO module. It was 20 years old, and
|> at least 10 years obsolete, so it needed that module updated, anyway.
|>
|> I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
|> the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a STL
|> transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for repair &
|> upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I waited for the
|> new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we had been hit. Then I
|> moved the microwave racks to a closet in the corner of the building, and
|> used 4" EMT between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
|> have had strikes since then, but no problems.
|>
|>
| Hi,
| Qucik check on Buckmaster shows he was born in '55. Technician
| plus(novice) holder. For his age, does not seem to have corresponding
| wisdom.

Whose wisdom are you judging? What have you see that I have posted that you
think is wrong? Would you like to debate the technical points? Or do you
just want to be one of those people that can only "win" by making personal
attacks?

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