Chip with simple program for Toy

In alt.engineering.electrical Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |>
|> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> |>
|> |> | Bullshit. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
|> |> | flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
|> |> | continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
|> |>
|> |> Not true.
|> |>
|> |> When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
|> |> out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
|> |> complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
|> |> It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
|> |> that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
|> |> a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|> |>
|> |> You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
|> |> you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
|> |> The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
|> |> circuit".
|> |
|> |
|> | Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
|> | Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
|> | claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
|> | difference.
|>
|> 1. I *am* an amateur radio operator and I *do* know the difference.
|>
|> 2. Electromotive force is not a factor here, beyond what it might do to cause
|> physical motion of wires during a surge (not impossible, but not usually
|> considered).

Things like motors and generators, including Faraday's homopolar generator,
are interesting things to talk about (IMHO) ... in a different thread. Bring
it up (post a new thread) if you have a point to say or a question to ask.
It should generally go in alt.engineering.electrical, only, not the many other
groups that have been put in this thread.

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

 

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

Bye. Nothing missed. Nothing gained.

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

 

In alt.engineering.electrical VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.engineering.electrical VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:
|>
|> | Actually, a real current will flow until the line's capacitance is
|> | charged to the source voltage. When the source is removed, the energy
|> | involved will remain until it is leaked off through the inter-wire
|> | resistance. If the source is AC, no net energy will "flow", except that
|> | lost in the inter-wire resistance. If the line length is long enough at
|> | the frequency involved, reflections from the end of an incorrectly
|> | terminated transmission line will return to dissipate energy in the
|> | source resistance.
|>
|> That reflection even happens with DC. When the switch closes, you have a
|> rising wavefront leading the chargeup of the line. Unless the far end has
|> a perfectly matched load, that wavefront will reflect back. This is in
|> fact how a lot of very early radio transmissions were tuned, with the
|> "switch" being a noisy spark gap, and the "line" being a long wire antenna
|> cut to a specific length. You don't even need to have 2 conductors.
|
| That's because a switch closure is not really DC. Resolve a step
| function into a Fourier series, and it has an infinite number of AC
| components. In the case of a single wire, you do need to consider EM
| theory.

Electromagnetic, yes. Electromotive (as someone else suggested), not really.

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

 

[Don Kelly]

----------------------------
"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:dncTj.112858$rd2.31639@pd7urf3no...

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net
wrote:

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

Not true.

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

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

Hmmm,
You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and voltage(poential)
Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we have to rewrite Ohm's law.
Show your credential to make a stamement like that.
Shameful.
------------------------

Actually, you are showing some confusion. Phil is right in that he is
bringing out a point that normal lumped RLC circuit theory doesn't handle
because it essentially treats the speed of propagation of electrical signals
as if it were infinite- which isn't true.

1)Current (not current flow which is meaningless) is NOT energy.
Current*voltage*time IS energy-
..
2)Also, on energizing a line whether it is open or closed, there is a
current flow as the applied voltage "sees" the characteristic impedance of
the line (wire or whatever) so a current will flow-even on an open circuit-
until there is a modifying reflection from the termination. For a house the
distances are such that this may be of the order of 0.1-0.2 microsecond.
After all such reflections at terminations have ceased or are negligable,
conventional circuit theory is applicable.
In these situations, you are dealing with wave propagation rather than
conventional circuit theory.
This is the regime that is of interest in considering "surge protectors"

As to the advantage of "whole house" vs local surge protection, "whole house
protection depends on distances to all "protected" items being small. Local
protection doesn't but is simply that- local. The effectiveness of either
depends considerably on grounding and other factors.

The spate of name calling doesn't do anything of use to anybody.
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

 

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:
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>
|> |> | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
|> |> | the experiment".
|> |>
|> |> I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
|> |> the explanations.
|> |
|> | Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
|> | reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
|> | of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
|> | for which you have no supporting cite.
|>
|> You are likely to never see any citation that attests to what I believe.
|
| Because some of what you believe has nothing to do with the real world.

Which somes are that?


|> | And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
|> | by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
|> | apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
|> | with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.
|>
|> I've _met_ electrical engineers that are idiots. I've met people in a
|> lot of other fields that are idiots.
|>
|> I don't know if the authors of what you have read are idiots. Maybe they
|> are just not writing as broadly as you think they are.
|
| Of course they are idiots. They are all members of the IEEE. Only idiots
| can join. And only the biggest idiots can write publications for the IEEE.

Your words, not mine.


| Martzloff is not only an IEEE idiot. He worked for the NIST - another
| well known lair of idiots.

Your words, not mine.


| Thank goodness you aren?t a member.

Yeah, right.


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

You are now taking what Martzloff said out of context. He _qualified_
what he said in terms of a statement conditional. Following the part
you just now quoted is "... if the front of the wave is not shorter than
the travel time of the impulse." Then he added "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."

Hint: what "if" means is that if the conditional is not met, then the
statement does not apply.

Martzloff's statement is actually correct. Your quoting of it is wrong.
I suspect your understanding of it is weak or maybe even wrong. I believe
you are misapplying it. Then when _my_ statement contradicts _your_
incorrect understanding, you somehow think *I* am contradicting him.

His statement is qualified for a specific slow impulse rise time that
corresponds to a lower frequency. He has NOT said (in what you quoted
in earlier posts here) that no surge can ever have a faster rise time.
He has NOT said that you cannot think in terms of transmission line
behaviour for faster rise times, even on shorter wiring/circuits.

I recall there being something he said that I would contradict, but THIS
statement is NOT it.


|> Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
|> at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases.
|
| Like branch circuits under 200 meters long.

See description of your error above.


|> | You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
|> | times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
|> | derived.
|>
|> So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?
|
| I intended "induced" meaning produced by including the most damaging -
| strikes to utility lines.

The most damaging strikes tend to be ones that are NOT induced. Do you
understand what induction and inductive coupling is?

Lightning does not have to directly strike the wire for there to be a
surge on it. That is induction when there is no direct strike. If the
strike _is_ directly on the wires, that's different (and has the exposure
of substantially more voltage/current).


|> I didn't see where you quoted anything by IEEE or its experts that specify
|> actual rise times of any kind of surge, induced or otherwise.
|
| From the Martzloff quote you didn't read:
| "For a 1.2/50 us impulse". That is 1.2 microseconds rise time.

Oh I read it. You are making presumptions because I did not conclude
the same thing you concluded.

Because he said "For a ...", he is describing an example scenario and
giving the calculated line length where transmission line effects become
significant enough to consider.


| From w_'s favorite engineer source "an 8 microsecond rise time".
|
| Don?t you read anything?

If you had simply said "Don't you read _everything_" then I would have
agreed with you. And that would be because I actually do not read a
lot of, or maybe most of, w_tom posts. I don't even see them all
because he is posting from Google Groups. So I don't know what, or
how much, I missed from him.

And I don't care.

OTOH, I have read the original quotes of Martzloff's statements that you
made, and then I read the subsequent quotes where you have trimmed them
to change the apparent context to support assertions you seem to be making
that Martzloff is not actually supporting.


| The numbers come from an IEEE standard - accepted by everyone but you.

The numbers are example cases. Read what YOU QUOTED ... CAREFULLY!


|> | One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
|> | rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
|> | with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don?t get transmission line
|> | effects at 100kHz.
|>
|> I agree that you don't get transmission line effects under 100 kHz for 200m
|> wires ... of any significance to worry about for surge matters.
|>
|> OTOH, you have not shown how even if an 8 microsecond rise time is significant
|> as a representative case, that it can't get shorter than that in severe cases.
|> or even a higher rise voltage (which hasn't even been specified at all here).
|
| I provided 2 direct sources. They follow IEEE standards for rise time.
|
| Still never seen - a cite that supports your opinion.

Why should I even bother? The more you post, and the more you take things
out of context, and the more you misunderstand what you quote, the more I
realize there is no point in making further efforts for you.


| It is Phil?s phantasy physics.

Or Bud's fantasy prose?

--
|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:
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>
|> |> | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
|> |> | the experiment".
|> |>
|> |> I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
|> |> the explanations.
|> |
|> | Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
|> | reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
|> | of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
|> | for which you have no supporting cite.
|>
|> You are likely to never see any citation that attests to what I believe.
|
| Because some of what you believe has nothing to do with the real world.

Which somes are that?


|> | And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
|> | by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
|> | apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
|> | with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.
|>
|> I've _met_ electrical engineers that are idiots. I've met people in a
|> lot of other fields that are idiots.
|>
|> I don't know if the authors of what you have read are idiots. Maybe they
|> are just not writing as broadly as you think they are.
|
| Of course they are idiots. They are all members of the IEEE. Only idiots
| can join. And only the biggest idiots can write publications for the IEEE.

Your words, not mine.


| Martzloff is not only an IEEE idiot. He worked for the NIST - another
| well known lair of idiots.

Your words, not mine.


| Thank goodness you aren?t a member.

Yeah, right.


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

You are now taking what Martzloff said out of context. He _qualified_
what he said in terms of a statement conditional. Following the part
you just now quoted is "... if the front of the wave is not shorter than
the travel time of the impulse." Then he added "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."

Hint: what "if" means is that if the conditional is not met, then the
statement does not apply.

Martzloff's statement is actually correct. Your quoting of it is wrong.
I suspect your understanding of it is weak or maybe even wrong. I believe
you are misapplying it. Then when _my_ statement contradicts _your_
incorrect understanding, you somehow think *I* am contradicting him.

His statement is qualified for a specific slow impulse rise time that
corresponds to a lower frequency. He has NOT said (in what you quoted
in earlier posts here) that no surge can ever have a faster rise time.
He has NOT said that you cannot think in terms of transmission line
behaviour for faster rise times, even on shorter wiring/circuits.

I recall there being something he said that I would contradict, but THIS
statement is NOT it.


|> Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
|> at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases.
|
| Like branch circuits under 200 meters long.

See description of your error above.


|> | You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
|> | times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
|> | derived.
|>
|> So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?
|
| I intended "induced" meaning produced by including the most damaging -
| strikes to utility lines.

The most damaging strikes tend to be ones that are NOT induced. Do you
understand what induction and inductive coupling is?

Lightning does not have to directly strike the wire for there to be a
surge on it. That is induction when there is no direct strike. If the
strike _is_ directly on the wires, that's different (and has the exposure
of substantially more voltage/current).


|> I didn't see where you quoted anything by IEEE or its experts that specify
|> actual rise times of any kind of surge, induced or otherwise.
|
| From the Martzloff quote you didn't read:
| "For a 1.2/50 us impulse". That is 1.2 microseconds rise time.

Oh I read it. You are making presumptions because I did not conclude
the same thing you concluded.

Because he said "For a ...", he is describing an example scenario and
giving the calculated line length where transmission line effects become
significant enough to consider.


| From w_'s favorite engineer source "an 8 microsecond rise time".
|
| Don?t you read anything?

If you had simply said "Don't you read _everything_" then I would have
agreed with you. And that would be because I actually do not read a
lot of, or maybe most of, w_tom posts. I don't even see them all
because he is posting from Google Groups. So I don't know what, or
how much, I missed from him.

And I don't care.

OTOH, I have read the original quotes of Martzloff's statements that you
made, and then I read the subsequent quotes where you have trimmed them
to change the apparent context to support assertions you seem to be making
that Martzloff is not actually supporting.


| The numbers come from an IEEE standard - accepted by everyone but you.

The numbers are example cases. Read what YOU QUOTED ... CAREFULLY!


|> | One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
|> | rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
|> | with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don?t get transmission line
|> | effects at 100kHz.
|>
|> I agree that you don't get transmission line effects under 100 kHz for 200m
|> wires ... of any significance to worry about for surge matters.
|>
|> OTOH, you have not shown how even if an 8 microsecond rise time is significant
|> as a representative case, that it can't get shorter than that in severe cases.
|> or even a higher rise voltage (which hasn't even been specified at all here).
|
| I provided 2 direct sources. They follow IEEE standards for rise time.
|
| Still never seen - a cite that supports your opinion.

Why should I even bother? The more you post, and the more you take things
out of context, and the more you misunderstand what you quote, the more I
realize there is no point in making further efforts for you.


| It is Phil?s phantasy physics.

Or Bud's fantasy prose?

--
|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.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.
|
| Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
| theory.

Not understanding it is your loss.


| Two sources directly contradict Phil.

What sources? Your truncated out of context quotes?


| Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.

I don't care.

--
|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.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.
|
| Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
| theory.

Not understanding it is your loss.


| Two sources directly contradict Phil.

What sources? Your truncated out of context quotes?


| Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.

I don't care.

--
|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:
|>
|> Bud is focusing on the low frequency energy and
|> seems to think that is all there us because a lot of documents focus
|> on it because more energy is in the low frequencies. Also, surges
|> that come from a greater distance have the higher frequencies reduced.
|>
|> Bud either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
|> not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it.
|
| Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
| they are not as smart as Phil.)

Bud has quoted people like Martzloff out of context.


| Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.

Phil doesn't care.


| (But this is *Phil* - why should he need sources?)

Why should he care?

--
|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.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:
|>
|> | As always, "w_tom" ignores that the high voltages that short out
|> | "3 miles of sky" will short out the underground power lines which
|> | enter my building and buildings all over America. Anything able to
|> | leap "3 miles of sky" will leap the fraction of an inch between the
|> | power lines and the earthed metal conduit. What is left will be a
|> | much lower voltage spike that can be handled by the average
|> | "plug-in protector".
|>
|> It does not always make the 2nd leap to ground. There is not always a metal
|> conduit available. I've seen such strikes.
|
|
| With no service panel suppressor it is well accepted that at about 6kV
| there will be arc-over from bus to enclosure for (US) circuit breaker
| panels. While arcing, the voltage will be hundreds of volts. Since the
| panel/system ground is connected to the earth electrode (US) most of
| surge energy is dumped to earth.

But what is remaining, in a significant surge, is still capable of causing
damage. A surge already has some high frequency energy. That moves on past
the point of arc even before the arc happens. Once the arc is established,
it can then produce its own high frequency effects. Ignoring this leaves
you open to more damage.


| If talking about a plug-in suppressor, Experiments by Martzloff (the
| idiot/member-of-the-IEEE) show surprisingly little energy reaches the
| suppressor. Circuit impedance greatly limits the current, and thus
| energy. Surprisingly, there is more energy at the MOV for lower surge
| currents (on short branch circuits) because the MOV can hold the panel
| voltage below the 6kV breakover voltage. With up to 10kA surges, the max
| energy at the MOV was 34J with most cases below 1.2J.

I've seen surge energy reach an appliance that is significant enough to cause
complete melt through of AWG #8 copper conductors. There was no protection
installed in that particular case.

--
|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:

Same is described by van Deursen and van der Laan when lightning
caused damage to a nuclear hardened maritime radio station. Did they
cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can stop lightning damage"? Of course not.

Nono. They cried "w_tom is me. Stop lightning damage I can."

Nick

 

w_tom wrote:

Same is described by van Deursen and van der Laan when lightning
caused damage to a nuclear hardened maritime radio station. Did they
cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can stop lightning damage"? Of course not.

Nono. They cried "w_tom is me. Stop lightning damage I can."

Nick

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Gaurav" <selfishgaurav@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74f7c934-2fde-4a0f-9f3e-d8d6203cf7ad@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Hi everybody,
It has been a long time since my college and I wish to brush up my
learning that I once did. I am in need of a wireless headphone and
would love to construct one of my own. I understand that the basic
concept is that I channel the output of my music system to a FM
transmitter and receive it in a small FM receiver that I can carry
around in my pocket and listen to through headphones.

If I am right so far, it boils down to constructing a FM transmitter.
I came across some circuits, the easiest of which appeared to use
BA1404 chip. Unfortunately, I could not find the chip. I came across
some other simple digital circuits that used a set of NAND gates but I
could not get it to work. It appears that a breadboard (of the type I
am using to set my components on) is not suitaded for such fast
circuits. Could anyone please me point to a simple circuit which:

1. does not use too many components,
2. works with stereo transmission (what is music without stereo,
right?)
3. is easy to construct,
4. works on less power (cuz I do not need to transmit beyond maybe 50
feet), and most importantly
5. is hard to go wrong with.

I would be very thankful for your kind help in regaining my lost love
of electronics.

Cheers
Gaurav

Look at this:
http://electroschematics.com/122/wireless-headphones-receiver-circuit-schematic/

There is a link for the transmitter on the page also.

Tom

 

[Tom Biasi]

"Gaurav" <selfishgaurav@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74f7c934-2fde-4a0f-9f3e-d8d6203cf7ad@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Hi everybody,
It has been a long time since my college and I wish to brush up my
learning that I once did. I am in need of a wireless headphone and
would love to construct one of my own. I understand that the basic
concept is that I channel the output of my music system to a FM
transmitter and receive it in a small FM receiver that I can carry
around in my pocket and listen to through headphones.

If I am right so far, it boils down to constructing a FM transmitter.
I came across some circuits, the easiest of which appeared to use
BA1404 chip. Unfortunately, I could not find the chip. I came across
some other simple digital circuits that used a set of NAND gates but I
could not get it to work. It appears that a breadboard (of the type I
am using to set my components on) is not suitaded for such fast
circuits. Could anyone please me point to a simple circuit which:

1. does not use too many components,
2. works with stereo transmission (what is music without stereo,
right?)
3. is easy to construct,
4. works on less power (cuz I do not need to transmit beyond maybe 50
feet), and most importantly
5. is hard to go wrong with.

I would be very thankful for your kind help in regaining my lost love
of electronics.

Cheers
Gaurav

Look at this:
http://electroschematics.com/122/wireless-headphones-receiver-circuit-schematic/

There is a link for the transmitter on the page also.

Tom

 

[Tantalust]

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:6bf6aafc-99ed-47e6-95b3-b98f5a2df8ae@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 1:24 pm, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:

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

Ask polite or technical questions =snip=

"Boys and girls....claaaasss........be *polite* to our nice, kind
kindergarten teacher.....". LOLOL

 

[Tantalust]

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:6bf6aafc-99ed-47e6-95b3-b98f5a2df8ae@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 1:24 pm, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:

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

Ask polite or technical questions =snip=

"Boys and girls....claaaasss........be *polite* to our nice, kind
kindergarten teacher.....". LOLOL

 

[David L. Jones]

<Vand93@mac.com> wrote in message
news:66ae2b5e-0c78-489b-a850-9d43f417ec47@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

I want to built a garage for an electric vehicle with a photovoltaic
roof and/or a wind generator that will trickle charge the battery. I
need a simple, economical DC system with the reliability of an anvil.
And - I need someone smart enough to diagram it all out. That's
probably too much, but I'm told it never hurts to ask.....

I don't know where you live, but here in Australia you can simply buy 100%
wind or solar energy from existing capacity on the grid. Much cheaper and
easier than installing your own system.

Dave.

 

[David L. Jones]

<Vand93@mac.com> wrote in message
news:66ae2b5e-0c78-489b-a850-9d43f417ec47@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

I want to built a garage for an electric vehicle with a photovoltaic
roof and/or a wind generator that will trickle charge the battery. I
need a simple, economical DC system with the reliability of an anvil.
And - I need someone smart enough to diagram it all out. That's
probably too much, but I'm told it never hurts to ask.....

I don't know where you live, but here in Australia you can simply buy 100%
wind or solar energy from existing capacity on the grid. Much cheaper and
easier than installing your own system.

Dave.

 

[Tantalust]

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote

Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions.

Look at poor w_tom starting his back-pedalling.
Back-pedalling, back-pedalling, back-pedalling.

 

[Tantalust]

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote

Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions.

Look at poor w_tom starting his back-pedalling.
Back-pedalling, back-pedalling, back-pedalling.