MessageView 421F schematic

[N7ZZT - Eric Oyen]

w_tom wrote:

On Aug 15, 12:07 am, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
anyway, all this flame throwing and "attack the messenger" doesn't help
matters any. only cold, hard facts will prevail.

Cold hard facts were provided. From an APC Back-UPS 300 spec
sheet:
Surge Protection and Filtering
Surge energy rating 300 Joules
snip

you couldn't have stated anything in a single paragraph?

such wordy responses as you have shown tend to indicate to me that you know
less than you are prepared to admit (I've seen this type of behavior in too
many places not to know it for what it is).

why don't you step back from the keyboard, do a little reading 9and
thinking) and then collate your thoughts into something a bit more
manageable. I am not an engineer, so you might have to dumb it down a
little.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Aug 15, 12:15 am, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
now here is someone who has done some valid research (thank you!).

Some of us in the Ham radio corps (like me) tend to "over do it" on
grounding (for fairly obvious reasons). so far, that over engineering on my
part has saved a lot more than would have ordinarily been the case. still,
I should referr everyone back to my "defense in depth" proposal.



Why does Bud's citation page 42 Figure 8 show a plug-in protector
earthing a surge, 8000 volts destructively, throught an adjacent TV.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
entry. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

A surge suppressor at the power service (which is a good idea) would
provide absolutely NO protection. The problem is the wire connecting the
cable entry block to the power service is too long (not a "single point
ground"). The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

How does a protector without earth
ground 'layer' when IEEE papers routinely show earthing as essential
for shunt mode protectors? Each layer is defined by grouding.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing .
The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting
pdf page 40).

And
Orange County FL:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

More tower antenna fetish.

If you plan on erecting a 280 foot lightning rod (aka. tower antenna)
in your yard and connecting it to equipment in your building this may be
relevant. For hams, who must expect lightning strikes to antennas,
protection is much more complicated.

But not for the rest of us there are more useful sources of information.

Why do Bud's citation not agree with what he claims? Why does that
protector without earthing then shunt the surge 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV? Page 42 Figure 8.

The lie repeated.

The IEEE guide, in its section on examples, says:
"The previous sections have shown, in general, how to protect electronic
systems in houses:
1) Proper grounding and bonding, especially at the service entrance.
2) AC panel and primary signal surge protection at or near the service
entrance.
3) Multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected."

Meanwhile, why did you have the same power strip protectors that Bud
recommends; and suffer damage as a result?

The damage, as described by Eric, was caused by a 12500V primary crossed
to the 120V secondary wires. This will rapidly take out service panel
and plug-in surge suppressors.

You suffered
damage because the power strip did same damage demonstrated in Bud's
citation - Page 42 Figure 8. A power strip without a short connection
to earth ground therefore earthed that surge, destructively, through
expensive pieces of equipment.

The lie about the IEEE example.
A lie about what happened to Eric.


Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective. Read the sources.

w_ has never found a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors are
not effective. All you get are his opinions based on his religious beliefs.

Never explained:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?

--
bud--

 

[bud--]

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen wrote:

How did I suffer damage?
well, before I embarked on the "great rewiring" of my residence about 5
years ago, I ended up losing 2 very expensive computers to a couple of
surges caused by an exploding "pole pig" transformer in my back yard (the
result of which was that my house (and several others on the block) were
subjected to the 12.5 KV voltage from the primaries on the same poles.

You probably know the following, but just in case...

François Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and wrote the NIST
guide and has written "In fact, the major cause of TVSS [surge
suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge." You probably had “temporary” overvoltage (2
seconds to forever).

Surge suppressors are almost all based on MOV voltage clamps. Service
panel and plug–in suppressors which work well on sub-millisecond 12kV
surges will very rapidly be destroyed by temporary overvoltage.

UL (since 1998) requires that MOVs that fail be disconnected to protect
from overheating. A service panel suppressor would fail and disconnect
when hit with your 12kV.

The IEEE guide describes at length how, for a plug-in suppressors, the
protected load may be connected across the MOVs and be disconnected with
the MOVs if they fail, or may be connected directly to the incoming
line. If connected across the MOVs, the protected load is likely to be
protected against temporary overvoltage. A few plug-in suppressors
totally disconnect on overvoltage.

A UPS is likely to switch to backup protecting the connected equipment.
(In all cases there could still be a failure from voltage that results
between power and signal wires.)


A link (posted by Bruce Johnson) at:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/computing/august89.html
has a similar event to yours.

A lot of light bulbs died. Most of the equipment connected to plug–in
surge suppressors survived. A UPS not only protected the connected
equipment, the equipment continued to function through the 'event'.


--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

In another post, you complained about a post too long. Why was it
long? Because it provided numerous reasons why. A post without 'why'
would be useless. Still that post was a very abridged discussion.
Bill Ott was not the only source. Numerous most responsible sources
were provided AND Bill is in total agreement with those sources.

Think about it man. Every point is not tied to a ground. Wire
impedance is why an earthing wire must be so short. Whereas the same
AC receptacle safety ground is maybe 0.2 ohms resistance to the
breaker box; that same wire is maybe 130 ohms impedance to a surge.
Even a trivial 100 amp surge earthed by that AC electric wire would
put the receptacle at 13,000 volts. And so we have the same thing on
Page 42 Figure 8 - plug-in protector at 8000 volts and the resulting
damage.

Not only must a cable be earthed when entering the building. That
cable earthing connection must be as short as is practicable. It
cannot connect directly to a second floor TV. An earthing wire two
stories down to the earthing electrode it too long. First the cable
must drop down to make a short earthing connection. Then cable rises
back up to connect to a second floor TV. Again, wire length
determines how well earthed that cable is - determines TV protection.
That shorter connection to earth means a surge need not enter the
building to find earth ground 8000 volts destructively through a TV -
Page 42 Figure 8.

Polyphaser even has a protector with no earth ground. That
connection must be so short that their protector is mounted on
earthing - zero feet away. As a ham, you are aware of Polyphaser - an
industry benchmark. Polyphaser discusses protection in terms of
earthing - extensively - which explains their legendary reputation.

Price does not determine life expectancy of a protector. Joules
determines that life expectancy. A protector that has failed (as
indicated by the light) was grossly undersized - may have even been a
threat to human life. Money says little about the protection. But the
light says the protector was grossly undersized - ineffective
protection. Meanwhile the naive recommend a UPS as surge protection
only because a UPS costs more. You are ham. Therefore you (should)
know that joules determine a protector's life expectancy. As joules
increase, then life expectancy increases exponentially. Learn from
datasheets; not from so many myths that promote protectors without
earth grounds. Little relationship exists between a protector's price
and its quality.

Is that $150 protector sold in the Best Buy or Circuit City best?
Of course not. Look at its joules and the earthing connection that
does not exist. Notice that another protector selling for one fifth
the price has the same joules. But since protectors are promoted both
by and to people who don't even understand earthing, then price is
determined by hype. Price has little relationship to protector life
expectancy or quality when myths rather than technical spec numbers
are being promoted.

Specs? Show me where a plug-in protector manufacturer - selling a
complete layer of protection - cites each type of surge and numbers
for the protection. Why do they never make numeric claims? Why does
Bud never cite those numbers? Because the manufacturer cannot claim in
writing - with numbers - to provide protection that does not exist.

Have I read Bud's documents? How many times do I correct his
interpretation? He 'cut and pastes' the exact same text over 300
times. Eric - I have been doing this stuff maybe longer than you have
existed. Grasp a first year EE concept? That safety ground wire at
0.2 ohms resistance does not effectively earth; is maybe 130 ohms
impedance? And then it gets worse. Too many sharp bends. Too many
splices. Bundled with other wires. Somehow you are posting as if
you believe household safety ground wires are sufficient as earth
grounds. Using first year EE training, that is obviously incorrect.

Did you understand an IEEE paper from van der Laan and van Duersen?
Or the many papers co-authored by Uman? Did you read industry
standards such as Qwest's standards for earthing. Did you even grasp
what Bud's own citations say? Could I make it any easier? Remember
who has learned this stuff as an engineer many decades ago. Posted
was a long list of source who discuss this stuff - even from Sun
Microsystems Server guide - in can.internet.highspeed on 22 Jun 2007
and 28 Jun entitled "Of lottery tickets and lightning" at:
http://tinyurl.com/32v3le

I know this stuff which is why I have seen same damage created by a
protector too close to powered off electronics and too far from earth
ground - as demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8. In one case, we
literally replaced ICs on circuit boards to trace that surge AND make
everything functional again. I have read what Bud posts since he 'cut
and pastes' the same things about 300 times - knowing full well the
replies that expose his half truths. Bud's objective is to muddy the
waters - protect those sales. Did you see how still refuses to cite
manufacturer specs that claim protection? No such specs exist.
Bud is the troll who follows me everywhere 'cut and pasting' the same
posts - maybe 300 times. Meanwhile, I learned this stuff by reading
AND by doing.

In one case, I installed by protector solution on a friend house
(decades ago). But I vaporized one lead. Never got back to fix it.
Therefore only one half of the house was protected when a direct
lightning strike hit the transformer. Neighbors suffered damage.
Everything on his unprotected side was destroyed including garage door
opener and security system - everything. However the other side with
a protector and a three foot connection to earth - not one item was
damaged.

Some months later, he had no electricity only on every appliance of
the protected side. The protector had earthed a surge so large as to
partially damage only that side of the meter. Other side of meter
(that connected a surge to every previously damaged electronics) still
worked. Why was meter damaged? A surge was so effectively earthed as
to (apparently) earth more surge, partially damage the meter, and
result in zero damaged appliances. But then this protector was only
three feet from an earthing rod in conductive soil. Why so much
current as to destroy a meter and yet no appliance damage? The
protection was even better because an earth ground connection was so
short (and no sharp bends, no splices, separated from other wires,
etc).

What is the best power strip? The $3.50 strip with that all so
necessary circuit breaker and no MOVs. As made so obvious by numbers,
a circuit breaker does nothing - zero - for surge protection.
Effective MOVs are relocated to make a short connection to single
point earth ground. MOVs adjacent to the appliance may only create
damage such as Page 42 Figure 8. But then we saw same - plug-in
protectors earth a surge destructively through a network of computers.

To appreciate why earthing defines protection, learn the concepts of
conductivity and equipotential. Why does a kid with an Xbox easily
destroy any plug-in protector solution? Equipotential is compromised
AND zero conductivity exists. A protection system must accomplish
both. We want a single point earth ground (as even the ARRL states)
and we want that earthing to be the best earthing electrode (which is
more than just low resistance).

Recently, a neighborhood suffered what may have been a 33k or 69k
volt transmission line falling on their distribution. Hundreds of
electric meters were literally exploded from their bases. Many meters
were found in pieces 30 feet away. Many homeowners lost computers,
stereos, TVs, and plug-in protectors. My friend had no plug-in
protectors, one properly earthed 'whole house' protector, AND no
damage - except to his meter.

Damning are those other failed plug-in protectors. Why? The
protector must be properly sized so as to remain functional after the
surge. The 'whole house' protector was. But plug-in protectors were
also so grossly undersized (as well as overpriced) as to fail pre-
maturely.

And then we have this other problem with protectors that are grossly
undersized. Plug-in protectors are typically located where fire is a
greatest risk such as on a rug or adjacent to desktop papers. Just
another problem with plug-in protectors - the 'scary pictures'.
Especially note the last citation from the Gaston County Fire Marshall
- why fires created by plug-in protectors may be improperly blamed on
overloads:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FIRES.doc

Yes I also saw this happen with some of my early experiments. But
protectors that are grossly undersized do get the naive to promote
more sales. An effective protector earths a surge AND remains
functional. If that indicator light reports a failure, then the
protector was grossly undersized - should not have been purchased.
Notice that protectors with an essential earthing wire from
responsible manufactures such as Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer,
GE, Square D, and Siemens are also properly sized. Not listed as
responsible are APC, Tripplite, Belkin. Their protectors don't have
that dedicated earthing wire. Some with UL1449 approval have even
created 'scary pictures'. Another problem with plug-in protectors -
the risk of fire.

Bottom line simple fact: the protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Effective protectors also have minimally sufficient
joules instead of being sold on hype - like products from Monster
Cable.

Getting 'defense in depth' using a plug-in protector: assumes the
plug-in protector operates in series mode - stops or blocks surges.
That means products such as from Zerosurge, Brickwall, and Surgex -
filters. Filters with a bypass wire. Just another reason why proper
earthing is so important. These filters are installed as supplemental
protection. But a properly earthed protection system is still
required. Plug-in protectors don't do filtering. And yet that is
what they must accomplish to provide 'defense in depth' as defined.

No wonder plug-in protector manufactures don't even cite each type
of transient and protection from that transient. They will not even
claim to provide protection from the typically destructive surge. You
want that 'defense in depth'? Well those filters costs $hundreds.
Even with series mode protectors, still, the protection is only as
good as its earth ground.

Why is all this relevant to anyone else? Because all household
appliance are also connected to AC mains like a radio is connect to an
antenna. A direct lightning strike to wires highest on utility poles
or to wires underground is a direct lightnng strike to hosuehold
appliance .... if that surge is not earthed before entering the
building.

On Aug 16, 2:59 am, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

w_tom wrote:
http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/
I know of bill. His is not the only source I reference though.
...

hello? think about it man. each point is tied to the same ground (it took
rather a long while to get the whole house done so that all grounds are at
same potential and I didn't bother with that silly conduit trick some home
developers tried using in the 1980's either!)
...

have you read any of the documents he submitted (let alone his post)? Had
you bothered to read (and think) perhaps the answers you seek would have
become painfully clear. also, I did not see mention of that specific
scenario showing up in the documentation (as presented).

Lastly, I do run a small computer center here at home and it took me a
better part of the last 5 years to get the while house up to IEEE
recommended wiring (with a little over engineering on my part)
...


really? funny. the cheaper they are, the less time they last (I happen to
work in retail marketing on my other job and I do see this all the time.
the really cheap power strips offer no protection at all (aside of a single
circuit breaker) and the cheapo "protected" power strips aren't much
better.
...

How did I suffer damage?
well, before I embarked on the "great rewiring" of my residence about 5
years ago, I ended up losing 2 very expensive computers to a couple of
surges caused by an exploding "pole pig" transformer in my back yard (the
result of which was that my house (and several others on the block) were
subjected to the 12.5 KV voltage from the primaries on the same poles.

Homeowners insurance covered the loss of the major appliances (washer,
drier, fridge, etc) but not the computer equipment (I never did get a
straight answer from them and ended up having to eat the cost after
attempting court action - I have since switched insurance policies).

you keep bringing up page 42 figure 9 like its some kind of mantra.
personally, it just sounds to me like you are whining and don't really
understand the problem at hand. have you a real point to make here?
...

 

[w_tom]

On Aug 16, 3:03 am, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

snip
you couldn't have stated anything in a single paragraph?

such wordy responses as you have shown tend to indicate to me that you know
less than you are prepared to admit (I've seen this type of behavior in too
many places not to know it for what it is).

Another reply is even longer because it defines the technology
repeatedly with numerous reasons 'why'. Without those many 'whys',
then I would be George Bush proving that Saddam had WMDs. Provided
was a short list of reasons 'why' the plug-in protectors are so
ineffective AND 'why' hype and dollars promotes those products without
any technical specs. But again, where are manufacturer specs for that
'complete' protection box? Why does the manufacturer not list each
type of surge and numbers for that protection? Because that plug-in
'magic box' does not claim to provide protection from surges that
typically damage appliances. Obviously. No earthing wire. No
wonder so many are so grossly undersized (while costing more money).
Failure is acceptable with power strip protectors? Many don't even
understand the significance of joules.

Even one of Bud's regular sources, Martzloff, describes the problem
in his 1996 IEEE paper. A problem with plug-in (point of use)
protectors so significant that it is his very first conclusion:

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Bud routinely ignores that Martzloff paper when promoting plug-in
protectors. No wonder he completely ignores Page 42 Figure 8 - how
plug-in protectors have been observed creating household appliance
damage.

Protectors are not protection. Protectors are connecting devices to
protection. That protection is earth ground - as even Franklin
demonstrated in 1752 with lightning rods. A protector without a
connection to protection - earth ground - must then earth somewhere.
8000 destructively via a household TV because the protector did not
make that short connection to earth ground. But again - no earth
ground means no effective protection.

More examples of 'why' are provided here - which is not possible in
sound bytes and single paragraph replies.

 

On Aug 16, 1:52 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

Recently, a neighborhood suffered what may have been a 33k or 69k
volt transmission line falling on their distribution. Hundreds of
electric meters were literally exploded from their bases. Many meters
were found in pieces 30 feet away. Many homeowners lost computers,
stereos, TVs, and plug-in protectors. My friend had no plug-in
protectors, one properly earthed 'whole house' protector, AND no
damage - except to his meter.

love to see the newspaper article or news film clips on this one
tom_w, sound like the forest fire i put out with the water hose on the
side of my house.

 

On Aug 16, 1:52 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

In one case, I installed by protector solution on a friend house
(decades ago). But I vaporized one lead. Never got back to fix it.
Therefore only one half of the house was protected when a direct
lightning strike hit the transformer. Neighbors suffered damage.
Everything on his unprotected side was destroyed including garage door
opener and security system - everything. However the other side with
a protector and a three foot connection to earth - not one item was
damaged.

"But I vaporized one lead" This is the best reason to never take tom_w
advise.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

In another post, you complained about a post too long. Why was it
long? Because it provided numerous reasons why. A post without 'why'
would be useless. Still that post was a very abridged discussion.

AC receptacle safety ground is maybe 0.2 ohms resistance to the
breaker box; that same wire is maybe 130 ohms impedance to a surge.
Even a trivial 100 amp surge earthed by that AC electric wire would
put the receptacle at 13,000 volts.

No explanation of how you get 100A surge current on a branch circuit
where the impedance is 130 ohms. At about 6000V there will be arc-over
at panels and receptacles limiting the voltage available.

Specs? Show me where a plug-in protector manufacturer - selling a
complete layer of protection - cites each type of surge and numbers
for the protection. Why do they never make numeric claims? Why does
Bud never cite those numbers? Because the manufacturer cannot claim in
writing - with numbers - to provide protection that does not exist.

Specs? Show me where w_’s favored service panel surge suppressor
manufacturer SquareD:
<http://ecatalog.squared.com/pubs/Electrical%20Distribution/Surge%20Protective%20Devices/OEM%20Panel%20Mount%20TVSS/6671CT9701.pdf>
or
http://tinyurl.com/yuekdo
selling a complete layer of protection - cites “each type of surge”.
Why does SquareD never make numeric claims? Because “each type of
surge” is bullcrap from w_, an invention because he has no valid
technical arguments.
Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That covers all surge
modes.

In addition, at the SquareD link, literature for the ‘best’ service
panel suppressor says "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in TVSS [surge suppressor] devices at the
point of use."

For the ‘next best’ service panel suppressor, the connected equipment
warranty $ does not include "electronic devices such as: microwave
ovens, audio and stereo components, video equipment, televisions, and
computers."

Have I read Bud's documents? How many times do I correct his
interpretation?

How many times does w_ twist documents to say the opposite of what they
really say?

But poor w_ has twist, because everyone says plug-in suppressors are
effective, and w_’s religious belief in earthing is threatened.

Did you understand an IEEE paper from van der Laan and van Duersen?
Or the many papers co-authored by Uman?

Perhaps w_ could post a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors
are not effective. Perhaps cows will give beer.

Bud's objective is to muddy the
waters - protect those sales.

To quote w_ “It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit anyone that opposes him.

Bud is the troll who follows me everywhere 'cut and pasting' the same
posts - maybe 300 times.

w_ is a religious fanatic that trolls google-groups for “surge” to cut
and paste his religious tract about plug-in suppressors to convert the
heathens. But some in this newsgroup are remaining pagans.

And w_ exaggerates 10E6 times.

MOVs adjacent to the appliance may only create
damage such as Page 42 Figure 8.

The lie repeated. Several times.

Recently, a neighborhood suffered what may have been a 33k or 69k
volt transmission line falling on their distribution. Hundreds of
electric meters were literally exploded from their bases. Many meters
were found in pieces 30 feet away. Many homeowners lost computers,
stereos, TVs, and plug-in protectors. My friend had no plug-in
protectors, one properly earthed 'whole house' protector, AND no
damage - except to his meter.

As covered in a post to Eric, MOVs are rapidly destroyed by “temporary
overvoltage”. Service panel suppressors will be destroyed and
disconnect. Although plug–in suppressors are not intended to protect
from overvoltage, if the protected load is connected across the MOVs,
the load will likely be protected when the MOVs disconnect.

I provided a *link* to Jerry Pournelle, who reported that most of his
equipment connected to plug-in suppressors survived a cross to high
voltage. His equipment connected to a UPS not only survived, it kept
functioning.

Damning are those other failed plug-in protectors. Why? The
protector must be properly sized so as to remain functional after the
surge.

A high voltage line dropping on 120V lines is not a surge. The long
duration of the event will rapidly exceed the energy ratings of any MOV,
service panel or plug-in.

The 'whole house' protector was. But plug-in protectors were
also so grossly undersized (as well as overpriced) as to fail pre-
maturely.

Neither service panel or plug-in suppressors will survive a crossed
power line. Failure of either is not “premature”. This really sounds
like a w_ hallucination.

Grossly undersized" is a red herring. Suppressors with high ratings are
readily available for relatively low cost.

w_ thinks plug-in suppressors are overpriced because he buys only
Monster products.

And then we have this other problem with protectors that are grossly
undersized.

Repeating:
“In w_’s mind, plug-in suppressors have miniscule ratings, service
panel suppressors have mega ratings. But plug-in suppressors are readily
available with very high ratings for relatively low cost.”

Just
another problem with plug-in protectors - the 'scary pictures'.
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

Bottom line simple fact: the protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

The statement of religious belief in earthing. Unfortunately for w_’s
religious belief, the IEEE guide explains that plug-in suppressors work
primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at
the plug–in suppressor. The guide explains plug-in suppressors do not
work primarily by earthing. And that earthing occurs elsewhere.

Getting 'defense in depth' using a plug-in protector: assumes the
plug-in protector operates in series mode - stops or blocks surges.

Only w_ assumes plug-in suppressors stop or block surges. If he could
only think he could read the IEEE guide and discover how plug-in
suppressors work.

Other than Eric, who recommends ‘defense in depth’?

The NIST:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."

The IEEE:
"The previous sections have shown, in general, how to protect electronic
systems in houses:
1) Proper grounding and bonding, especially at the service entrance.
2) AC panel and primary signal surge protection at or near the service
entrance.
3) Multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected."



So many words and w_ doesn’t answer:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why do SquareD "whole house" suppressors not have those critical
numbers for "each type of surge"?
– Where is your source that HDTVs “must” work at 95V?

So many words and still no link to a source that agrees with w_ that
plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

But both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Aug 16, 3:03 am, N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
snip
you couldn't have stated anything in a single paragraph?

such wordy responses as you have shown tend to indicate to me that you know
less than you are prepared to admit (I've seen this type of behavior in too
many places not to know it for what it is).

Perhaps w_ is educated past his intelligence?

Without those many 'whys',
then I would be George Bush proving that Saddam had WMDs.

A sometimes reliable source has informed me w_ was a chief advisor to
George II on WMDs. Compare the complete lack of confirming sources that
say plug–in suppressors are not effective.

Why does the manufacturer not list each
type of surge and numbers for that protection?

Wh does w_’s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does
not list “each type of surge’? Because this is a bullcrap invention of w_’s.

Even one of Bud's regular sources, Martzloff, describes the problem
in his 1996 IEEE paper. A problem with plug-in (point of use)
protectors so significant that it is his very first conclusion:

w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994 (not 1996) paper:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors work.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what Martzloff said about them.


On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ similarly misconstrued the views of
Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff co-author, and provoked a response from an
electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of surge equalization type
[multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from
me. LOL."

Bud routinely ignores that Martzloff paper when promoting plug-in
protectors.

w_ routinely twists what Martzloff, Mansoor, the IEEE guide, the NIST
guide say. All say plug-in suppressors are effective.

And I don’t promote plug–in suppressors. I promote accurate information.
Read the guides for the whole picture. Use what is appropriate for your
situation.

No wonder he completely ignores Page 42 Figure 8 - how
plug-in protectors have been observed creating household appliance
damage.

The lie repeated.

But again - no earth
ground means no effective protection.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE and NIST guides plus
Martzloff and Mansoor say they are.


There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.


--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

On Aug 16, 4:09 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 16, 1:52 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
Recently, a neighborhood suffered what may have been a 33k or 69k
volt transmission line falling on their distribution. Hundreds of
electric meters were literally exploded from their bases. Many meters
were found in pieces 30 feet away. Many homeowners lost computers,
stereos, TVs, and plug-in protectors. My friend had no plug-in
protectors, one properly earthed 'whole house' protector, AND no
damage - except to his meter.
love to see the newspaper article or news film clips on this one
tom_w, sound like the forest fire i put out with the water hose on the
side of my house.

Apparently fl_fly_boy has no experience and knows only from
speculation. His knowledge is proved by mocking? fl_fly_boy
demonstrates how one with a 'doctorate awarded by retail store
shelves' knows so much. Why would meters damaged by 33K or 69K volts
result in news reports? This type event typically gets zero new
coverage - as fl_fly_boy would know if he had experience.

A homeowner that had a properly earthed a 'whole house' protector
had no damage - as expected. Others with plug-in protector had
appliance damage AND destroyed plug-in protectors. The homeowner has
a 'whole house' protector that remained operational because he did not
waste money on grossly undersized plug-in protectors.

 

On Aug 19, 1:03 am, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:

On Aug 16, 4:09 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 16, 1:52 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
Recently, a neighborhood suffered what may have been a 33k or 69k
volt transmission line falling on their distribution. Hundreds of
electric meters were literally exploded from their bases. Many meters
were found in pieces 30 feet away. Many homeowners lost computers,
stereos, TVs, and plug-in protectors. My friend had no plug-in
protectors, one properly earthed 'whole house' protector, AND no
damage - except to his meter.
love to see the newspaper article or news film clips on this one
tom_w, sound like the forest fire i put out with the water hose on the
side of my house.

Apparently fl_fly_boy has no experience and knows only from
speculation. His knowledge is proved by mocking? fl_fly_boy
demonstrates how one with a 'doctorate awarded by retail store
shelves' knows so much. Why would meters damaged by 33K or 69K volts
result in news reports? This type event typically gets zero new
coverage - as fl_fly_boy would know if he had experience.

A homeowner that had a properly earthed a 'whole house' protector
had no damage - as expected. Others with plug-in protector had
appliance damage AND destroyed plug-in protectors. The homeowner has
a 'whole house' protector that remained operational because he did not
waste money on grossly undersized plug-in protectors.

All I did was ask you a fact, if tens, or hundreds of meters where
flying 30 feet into other neighbors houses and cars in the driveways,
or at the kids playing in the yard, yes it would make the news in my
podunk town

Can you point us to a source that would give emergency room stats or
insurance damage annually from flying meters? How about a flying
meters survivors support group? How about an attorney advertisement?
How about fire department call stats? How about UL stats?

I did some searching and can't find any kind of flying meter cage's or
devices being sold.

Can't find any patents for these devices, I'll call the attorney and
get started.

thanks tom_w for the great idea

I thank you for the nice words, good to know Wal-Mart doctorate is
still values like yours.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Aug 16, 4:09 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:52 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
Recently, a neighborhood suffered what may have been a 33k or 69k
volt transmission line falling on their distribution. Hundreds of
electric meters were literally exploded from their bases. Many meters
were found in pieces 30 feet away. Many homeowners lost computers,
stereos, TVs, and plug-in protectors. My friend had no plug-in
protectors, one properly earthed 'whole house' protector, AND no
damage - except to his meter.
love to see the newspaper article or news film clips on this one
tom_w, sound like the forest fire i put out with the water hose on the
side of my house.

Apparently fl_fly_boy has no experience and knows only from
speculation. His knowledge is proved by mocking? fl_fly_boy
demonstrates how one with a 'doctorate awarded by retail store
shelves' knows so much. Why would meters damaged by 33K or 69K volts
result in news reports? This type event typically gets zero new
coverage - as fl_fly_boy would know if he had experience.

Exploding utility meters would certainly make the news in my non-podunk
town. Apparently it happens all the time in w_'s town, where w_
designs electrical systems.

A homeowner that had a properly earthed a 'whole house' protector
had no damage - as expected. Others with plug-in protector had
appliance damage AND destroyed plug-in protectors. The homeowner has
a 'whole house' protector that remained operational because he did not
waste money on grossly undersized plug-in protectors.

It is well know that overvoltage will rapidly destroy MOVs. Provide an
explanation for how service panel suppressors survived 33kV, at an easy
1 second duration.

I provided a *link* to Jerry Pournelle, a reliable source, who reported
that most of his equipment connected to plug-in suppressors survived a
cross to high voltage. His equipment connected to a UPS not only
survived, it kept functioning.


You forgot the link to a source that says plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

You also forgot to answer:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why do SquareD "whole house" suppressors not have those critical
numbers for "each type of surge"?
– Where is your source that HDTVs “must” work at 95V?


--
bud--

 

[N7ZZT - Eric Oyen]

Bud,
I learned a looooong time ago, never ask a question unless you already know
the answer (and it seems you do).

Unless "whats-his-name" can furnish a certified copy of his degree papers, I
am not in the mind to take him seriously.

It has been my experience (in the field) that one must take multiple
precautions against surges, spikes and other damaging electrical faults. A
single point of protection can also be a single point of failure.

Also, as noted, I do not think there are MOV units that can handle 30k+
Volts for 1 second or longer without breaking down (catestrophically in all
cases). I have also seen UPS units that continued to work after a serious
electrical problem (it worked, after a fashion, when it discharged, the
charging circuit was fried and would not restart). Still, I would rather
lose a $500.00 UPS than risk $20,000 in gear.

bud-- wrote:

It is well know that overvoltage will rapidly destroy MOVs. Provide an
explanation for how service panel suppressors survived 33kV, at an easy
1 second duration.

I provided a *link* to Jerry Pournelle, a reliable source, who reported
that most of his equipment connected to plug-in suppressors survived a
cross to high voltage. His equipment connected to a UPS not only
survived, it kept functioning.


You forgot the link to a source that says plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

You also forgot to answer:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why do SquareD "whole house" suppressors not have those critical
numbers for "each type of surge"?
? Where is your source that HDTVs ?must? work at 95V?


--
bud--

 

[bud--]

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen wrote:

Bud,
I learned a looooong time ago, never ask a question unless you already know
the answer (and it seems you do).

Unless "whats-his-name" can furnish a certified copy of his degree papers, I
am not in the mind to take him seriously.

A certified copy wouldn't help me - what he says is so stupid as applied
to plug-in suppressors. All the sources I have read are against him. I
suspect he is no longer functioning at 'full capacity'.

It has been my experience (in the field) that one must take multiple
precautions against surges, spikes and other damaging electrical faults. A
single point of protection can also be a single point of failure.

Certainly a good idea in general. I probably wouldn't use a lot of
protection in Nevada. If I lived in central Florida I would have a lot
more protection than I have now. And if I had a significant ham antenna
there would be major changes.

Also, as noted, I do not think there are MOV units that can handle 30k+
Volts for 1 second or longer without breaking down (catestrophically in all
cases).

Catastrophically for the MOVs, but damage would likely be limited by
protection now required by UL1449.

I have also seen UPS units that continued to work after a serious
electrical problem (it worked, after a fashion, when it discharged, the
charging circuit was fried and would not restart). Still, I would rather
lose a $500.00 UPS than risk $20,000 in gear.

--
bud--

 

[an old fiend]

<tnom@mucks.net> wrote in message
news1j5d3tb0rhq5ljf7smqhjqifptop0n423@4ax.com...

Here's Eric's real obsession.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.amateur.misc/msg/f3a236bcd3fe1b8c?hl=en&

INDEED!!!

Eric Oyen is my kind of homo!

--
http://ipunce.blogspot.com/



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[an old fiend]

"N7ZZT - Eric Oyen" <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:r7wAi.17336$Zk5.2303@newsfe23.lga...

KD8CTL wrote:

Yes Eric likes walking on the wild side!

http://tinyurl.com/m5lsl


lets see now.
no source headers....
no verification.....
clear case of a forge.....
internet innuendo......
possible libel/slander......


I guess that dog won't hunt....

btw Gavrielah, perhaps you should try being a bit more circumspect?
or, are you committing identity theft in using someones call?

either way, it looks like you are in hot water....



Oh goodie more idle threats from Eric the homo Oyen added to this list.

Thank You, Erica.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
I've reported there until I am blue in the face. it would be more
apprpriate
if they would just forward me his IP info so I can go after his ISP instead
(much more effective).

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
We'll see what your ISP says about your off charter trolling.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
they said they will be forwarding my information and their data off to the
offending ISP.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
considering I just got off the phone with them... They were very
accommodating. These folks would rather lose one troublesome user than
attract a whole lot of unwanted attention from the feds. so, thats the way
it is.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
just a word of advice, your ISP is now aware of your intent. should you
carry it out, I am fairly certain that they will take action against you
for failing to abide by the Terms of Service agreement you have, as well as
the Acceptable Use Policy you agreed to.
do it and you'd better find yourself another ISP.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
your words in this public forum can be considered actionable.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
your words here (like all others) can be considered actionable.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
mark these words well, your words are actionable. continue and you will have
to defend your position, and you will not like where you have to defend it.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
btw, your ip is showing I hope you look good in stripes

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
a case of libel and you are it

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
my warning still stands: you fuck with me at your own peril.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
any attempt by you to start an arguement with a fellow @home user
will be reported to the @home abuse dept. Basically, right now, you are
violating TOS here.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Should I just take all your
postings of late (they are easily accessible from deja) and forward them
as a digest to @home? Abusing behavior like your will not be tolerated.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
now, start telling the truth or you might as well leave the net.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
So, I'll leave you to it and let yourself be TOS'd for
gross violation of the AUP of your provider.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
you were terminated from the @home network for abusive behavior.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Continued harassssment on this point will result in many emails
to whatever provider you are currently using.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
With a few tools, it can be determined if there is a machine
on that IP currently, and with a little more digging, exactly WHO
is on that machine.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
You have no clue who you are dealing with here.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
take a good look at your TOS and tell me that again


N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
either way, it looks like you are in hot water....















--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:07:37 -0400, "an old fiend"
<kb9rqueer@punce.net> wrote:

fake

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:20:10 -0400, "an old fiend"
<kb9rqueer@punce.net> wrote:

fake

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Eric Oyen]

"an old fiend" <kb9rqueer@punce.net> wrote in message
news:46d322fe$0$27392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

tnom@mucks.net> wrote in message
news1j5d3tb0rhq5ljf7smqhjqifptop0n423@4ax.com...
Here's Eric's real obsession.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.amateur.misc/msg/f3a236bcd3fe1b8c?hl=en&

INDEED!!!

Eric Oyen is my kind of homo!

--
http://ipunce.blogspot.com/


N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:

I've reported there until I am blue in the face. it would be more
apprpriate
if they would just forward me his IP info so I can go after his ISP instead
(much more effective).

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
We'll see what your ISP says about your off charter trolling.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
they said they will be forwarding my information and their data off to the
offending ISP.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
considering I just got off the phone with them... They were very
accommodating. These folks would rather lose one troublesome user than
attract a whole lot of unwanted attention from the feds. so, thats the way
it is.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
just a word of advice, your ISP is now aware of your intent. should you
carry it out, I am fairly certain that they will take action against you
for failing to abide by the Terms of Service agreement you have, as well as
the Acceptable Use Policy you agreed to.
do it and you'd better find yourself another ISP.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
your words in this public forum can be considered actionable.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
your words here (like all others) can be considered actionable.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
mark these words well, your words are actionable. continue and you will have
to defend your position, and you will not like where you have to defend it.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
btw, your ip is showing I hope you look good in stripes

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
a case of libel and you are it

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
my warning still stands: you fuck with me at your own peril.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
any attempt by you to start an arguement with a fellow @home user
will be reported to the @home abuse dept. Basically, right now, you are
violating TOS here.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Should I just take all your
postings of late (they are easily accessible from deja) and forward them
as a digest to @home? Abusing behavior like your will not be tolerated.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
now, start telling the truth or you might as well leave the net.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
So, I'll leave you to it and let yourself be TOS'd for
gross violation of the AUP of your provider.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
you were terminated from the @home network for abusive behavior.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Continued harassssment on this point will result in many emails
to whatever provider you are currently using.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
With a few tools, it can be determined if there is a machine
on that IP currently, and with a little more digging, exactly WHO
is on that machine.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
You have no clue who you are dealing with here.

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
take a good look at your TOS and tell me that again


N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
either way, it looks like you are in hot water....

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote:
I guess that means I can have you treated like an internet stalker huh?

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote
consider this fair warning: the government defines what you are doing as a
federal crime and punishable as such. all that is required is that I file
charges. is that an obvious enough hint for you?

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote
your own words, actions, etc have done more than that. btw, expect a missive
from giganews for TOS violation (I told you, I am not messing around).

N7ZZT - Eric Oyen <n7zzt@127.0.0.1> wrote
that action constitutes harassment.
if you didn't want to become involved, then you should have stayed out of
it. you chose that involvement, now face the music like a man.



















--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:37:01 -0400, "Eric Oyen"
<ericoyen@noneofyourdamnbusiness.com> wrote:

"an old fiend" <kb9rqueer@punce.net> wrote in message
sock on sock action

"one useless man is disgrace 2 become a law firm 3 or more become a congress"
adams

woger you are a Congress all in your own head

http://kb9rqz.bravejournal.com/

and get ou the newly recovered KB9RQZ.blogspot.com as well

G

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com