Surge / Ground / Lightning

[w_tom]

On May 2, 4:24 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:

I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
protection and can be part of an effective solution.

trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
posted. Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
surge that typically does not do damage. How would you know? Well,
w_tom said it repeatedly - and trader ignored it. trader routinely
ignored what he did not understand or did not want to understand.

Typically destructive surges seek earth ground. trader, did you
grasp that point? If permitted inside a building, then that surge may
seek earth ground destructively via household appliances - overwhelm
protection inside appliances. trader - did you grasp that? Surge
protectors do not stop, block, or absorb that surge energy. A
protector simply connects surge energy to all other wires. trader -
that fact comes from any MOV datasheet. You can read a datasheet -
right?

What happens when one of those wires is connected short (ie 'less
than 10 feet') to earth ground? No destructive surge energy inside a
building. AND no Page 42 Figure 8 - surge earthed destructively via
an adjacent appliance. trader did not bother to read what the IEEE
says when a plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too earth
ground - Page 42 Figure 8? Oh.

Sorry, trader. Nobody is posting sound bytes. It required you to
grasp the technology. It required trader to also know that protection
inside all appliances is not provided by MOVs. It also required you
to know what w_tom posted and what you never did grasp. Page 42
Figure 8 happens when a properly earthed 'whole house' protector did
not earth the typically destructive type of surge. Another paragraph
repeatedly post, but ignored by trader.

trader – did you ever learn of the many types of surges? Or did you
just know that all surges are same? That also explains why trader
again misrepresents what was posted.

I suggest trader read what was posted rather than invent what he
wanted to hear. trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
sufficient expertise.

Effective protectors do as the NIST state - "simply divert [the
surge] to ground, where it can do no harm." However, no earth ground
means no effective protection. Sales promoters will never admit
that. Profits would be at risk.

Since this is not explained in terms of 'black and white', then
trader sees what he wants to see but was never posted:

Providing a reference that backs up his assertion that
plug-in protectors offer no protection at all

 

[bud--]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

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

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

And this is new information how?

Irrelevant comment.

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

Of course. And this is new info?

Irrelevant comment.

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

I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the
building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential
and using a single point of earthing.

If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what I already
said below:
"A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
suppressor above)."

But of course why would you read what someone else wrote.

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

Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one.

If you would have read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what
the 1st SquareD suppressor is. In fact right above your reply is "(or
the combined suppressor above)".

If you read what w_ wrote, trader wouldn’t have to explain what w_ said.

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

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

What is the breakdown voltage? What is the immunity level of a TV tuner?
Gas discharge tubes, among other devices, are used because they clamp at
a low voltage.

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

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

If you would read what has been written you would not make dumb
comments. My original response was to w_. My point was one of w_'s
"responsible manufacturers" (CH) makes plug–in suppressors. "I don’t
really care" what else CH has. You brought it up. I am not, and was not,
interested.

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

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

Apparently not enough of my posts go unread by you.

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

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

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

Wow - what a shortcoming. It isn't a 1000 page book.

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

If you had read what I have written it is obvious I have gotten
information from many places.

And 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.

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

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

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

Translation - Phil is smarter than the experts.

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.

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

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.

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


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

--
bud--

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On May 1, 2:18 pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
damages from from surges and lightning offer non such  claim or
warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
times, anything you do helps a bit.

Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
through it.

Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
through the TV?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On May 2, 4:24 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
protection and can be part of an effective solution.

trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
posted.

"No earth ground means no effective protection."

Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
surge that typically does not do damage.

Gee - thats kinda like "plug-in surge protectors offer absolutely no
benefit."

But UL listed plug-in suppressors are required to have MOVs from H-G,
N-G, H–N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surges.

trader did not bother to read what the IEEE
says when a plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too earth
ground [sic] - Page 42 Figure 8?

It is, of course, w_'s favorite lie, not what the IEEE guide says. The
guide says "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2
is required."

I suggest trader read what was posted rather than invent what he
wanted to hear.

But half the time w_ invents what he wants to hear.

trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted

But w_’s favorite technique is misrepresenting what people post.

trader just does not have sufficient electrical
knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
citations [sic].

w_ just does not have sufficient electrical knowledge to read simple
sources:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors (you don't have to read, just look at the pretty
pictures)?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why do all but one of w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

Effective protectors do as the NIST state [sic]

What does the NIST state?
"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
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable 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."

However, no earth ground
means no effective protection.

w_ said "nobody is posting sound bytes" - but there it is.

Poor w_ can't understand the explanation in the IEEE guide - plug-in
suppressor work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires (signal
and power) to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing. The
guide says earthing occurs elsewhere. (Guide starting pdf page 40.)

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Why can’t you find sources w_? I am beginning to think you are full of crap!

--
bud--

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 3 May 2008 09:46:09 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net put finger to
keyboard and composed:

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

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

True but irrelevant to my question. I wanted specific examples in
support of the claim that "some things installed will decrease
protection".

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

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

On May 2, 4:24 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
protection and can be part of an effective solution.

trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
posted. Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
surge that typically does not do damage. How would you know? Well,
w_tom said it repeatedly - and trader ignored it. trader routinely
ignored what he did not understand or did not want to understand.

Typically destructive surges seek earth ground.

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.

Take a look in the Google archives and see if you can find even one
post agreeing with tom, and his crackpot theories. He doesn't
understand the concept that a piece of wire is more than a lump of
metal, that it has inductance, resistance, and capacitance between it
and other conductors. The only thing tom is qualified to write about is
aluminum foil hats.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[Tony Hwang]

w_tom wrote:

On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[w_tom]

On May 3, 6:04 am, nicksans...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

Bullshit. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.

Yes, high impedance can supplement protection when high impedance is
part of a system that also includes the only essential component in
any surge protection system: a low impedance (short, no sharp bends,
no splices, etc) connection to single point earth ground. High
impedance does not provide protection; can only supplement effective
protection. Effective protection is a low impedance connection to
single point earth ground.

Why is the 'whole house' protector so effective? Page 42 Figure 8
demonstrates what happens when a protector is too far from earth
ground and too close to the appliance.. Effective protector includes
separation (higher impedance) from the protected appliance AND a short
(low impedance) connection to earth ground. That low impedance
connection is essential. High impedance can only supplement the
protection and is not effective when that low impedance earth
connection does not exist.

Will a high impedance stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
not? Of course not. Obviously not. And yet some just know
otherwise. Will that silly little one inch part inside a plug-in
protector stop what three miles of sky could not? Of course not.

Without that short (low impedance) and essential connection to
earth, only then can a high impedance connection do something useful.

 

[w_tom]

On May 3, 4:38 am, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
through the TV?

See many posts that describe this same failure to a network of
powered off computers. Surge incoming on wires that typically carry
most surges into buildings: black (hot) AC wire. Surge arrived two
plug-in protectors - each adjacent to powered off computers. Often
that surge is trivial; does not overwhelm protection inside a
computer's power supply. Maybe - but irrelevant due to the adjacent
protector.

Protector did its job - MOVs shunted (connected, diverted) surge
current into all other AC wires including the green safety ground
wire. Green wire connects directly to motherboard and network cards -
still seeking earth ground.

Path to earth was through the network and into a third computer.
Through that third computer's motherboard, through modem, and to earth
via phone lines. Semiconductors in these paths were damaged.

We literally traced this path by replacing ICs. Some ICs (ie
network interface chips) even had cracks on packages where surge
current entered or exiting those ICs. Absolutely no doubt as to how
surge currents found earth ground, destructively, via adjacent
computers.

Plug-in protector is not for and does not claim to protect from this
typically destructive type of surge. Often surges are too trivial to
overwhelm power supply circuits. But because that protector was too
close to powered off computers and too far from earth ground, then
surge was given an alternative and destructive path to earth ground
via networked computers.

Plug-in protectors are for surges that typically don't cause
damage. When the essential 'whole house' protector is not earthed,
then plug-in protectors may earth surges destructively through
adjacent appliances. Every time? Of course not. But the same
ineffective protection is demonstrated in Bud's citation - 8000 volts
destructively on Page 42 Figure 8. That surge was permitted inside
the building. Plug-in protector did nothing to avert 8000 volts
destructively via the adjacent TV. Bud says otherwise by denying Page
42 Figure 8.

Page 42 Figure 8 eliminated by properly earthing a 'whole house'
protector. Surges that seek earth ground destructively through
household appliances must be earthed at the service entrance.

What would have avoided above network damage? Homeowner later
installed and earthed a 'whole house' protector. Solution necessary
so that plug-in protectors do not earth surges, destructively, though
adjacent appliances, even on Page 42 Figure 8. Solution necessary so
that protection from a typically destructive surge exists.

 

[w_tom]

On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[w_tom]

On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

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.


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Tony Hwang]

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.

 

[Tony Hwang]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

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

Not true.

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

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



Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
difference.


Hi,

Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.

It's in his sig file: KA9WGN


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 20:14:17 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On May 3, 4:38 am, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
through the TV?

See many posts that describe this same failure to a network of
powered off computers. Surge incoming on wires that typically carry
most surges into buildings: black (hot) AC wire. Surge arrived two
plug-in protectors - each adjacent to powered off computers. Often
that surge is trivial; does not overwhelm protection inside a
computer's power supply. Maybe - but irrelevant due to the adjacent
protector.

Protector did its job - MOVs shunted (connected, diverted) surge
current into all other AC wires including the green safety ground
wire. Green wire connects directly to motherboard and network cards -
still seeking earth ground.

Path to earth was through the network and into a third computer.
Through that third computer's motherboard, through modem, and to earth
via phone lines. Semiconductors in these paths were damaged.

We literally traced this path by replacing ICs. Some ICs (ie
network interface chips) even had cracks on packages where surge
current entered or exiting those ICs. Absolutely no doubt as to how
surge currents found earth ground, destructively, via adjacent
computers.

Plug-in protector is not for and does not claim to protect from this
typically destructive type of surge. Often surges are too trivial to
overwhelm power supply circuits. But because that protector was too
close to powered off computers and too far from earth ground, then
surge was given an alternative and destructive path to earth ground
via networked computers.

Plug-in protectors are for surges that typically don't cause
damage. When the essential 'whole house' protector is not earthed,
then plug-in protectors may earth surges destructively through
adjacent appliances. Every time? Of course not. But the same
ineffective protection is demonstrated in Bud's citation - 8000 volts
destructively on Page 42 Figure 8. That surge was permitted inside
the building. Plug-in protector did nothing to avert 8000 volts
destructively via the adjacent TV. Bud says otherwise by denying Page
42 Figure 8.

Page 42 Figure 8 eliminated by properly earthing a 'whole house'
protector. Surges that seek earth ground destructively through
household appliances must be earthed at the service entrance.

What would have avoided above network damage? Homeowner later
installed and earthed a 'whole house' protector. Solution necessary
so that plug-in protectors do not earth surges, destructively, though
adjacent appliances, even on Page 42 Figure 8. Solution necessary so
that protection from a typically destructive surge exists.

OK, thanks. That all makes sense. However, I was thinking of a typical
2-pin TV, not an earthed computer.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Tony Hwang]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.



It's in his sig file: KA9WGN


Hmmm,

That is sign format of novice class.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tony Hwang wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.



It's in his sig file: KA9WGN


Hmmm,
That is sign format of novice class.

In more than one way. Read some of the other crap he's posted on
news:alt.engineering.electrical if you have a strong stomach.


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Tony Hwang]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:


Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.



It's in his sig file: KA9WGN



Hmmm,
That is sign format of novice class.



In more than one way. Read some of the other crap he's posted on
news:alt.engineering.electrical if you have a strong stomach.


Hmmm,

Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
dropped.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <131decf4-6a8d-42e8-a973-b71a30a7f862@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups
..com>, w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> writes

When trader misread, then trader reclessly invented MOVs
to provide internal protection.

Trader then assumed
that protection must be provided by MOVs.

trader assumes protection must be provided by MOVs.

MOVs inside appliances is
another trader 'wild speculation'

trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read what
was posted.

Mythical MOV inside
appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to see;

MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth.

then trader would not invent
fictional MOVs inside appliances.

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

What w_tom posted is not found in
trader's wild speculation.

Referring to yourself in the third person again. You need help from a
mental health professional, w_tom.

--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
(")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf