Surge / Ground / Lightning

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tony Hwang wrote:

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

Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or
_wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of dollars worth of
damage. I had a studio building and STL tower in Leesburg Florida hit
by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete from the building where
the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical. It WAS an excellent example
of _wacko_tom's UFER ground, before the steel vaporized inside damp
concrete. 95% of the damage was caused by the EMP. I lost the 11 GHz
Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system, all the computer terminals,
and had some minor problems with other electronics. It turned out that
the dead terminals all had high ESR electrolytics, and that they were
working because they were all on UPS before the strike took out all the
electricity. The power 1A2 supply needed some of the weird WE fuses,
one KTU card and was back in service. The STL was mounted on the tower
in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO module. It was 20 years old, and
at least 10 years obsolete, so it needed that module updated, anyway.

I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a STL
transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for repair &
upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I waited for the
new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we had been hit. Then I
moved the microwave racks to a closet in the corner of the building, and
used 4" EMT between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
have had strikes since then, but no problems.


--
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

 

[VWWall]

Tony Hwang wrote:

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

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

Not true.

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

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

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

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

--
Virg Wall, P.E.
K6EVE

 

[VWWall]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical VWWall <vwall@large.invalid> wrote:

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

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

That's because a switch closure is not really DC. Resolve a step
function into a Fourier series, and it has an infinite number of AC
components. In the case of a single wire, you do need to consider EM
theory.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.
K6EVE
P1-11-49835
T2-11-49835

 

[nobody >]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:

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

How much money are you willing to spend?

The only thing I can think of that comes close is to have a heavy
motor/generator set with a HUGE flywheel sitting in the basement.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fvjhvk016vr@news5.newsguy.com...

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:


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

Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
impedance of each direction? When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
very low impedance.

Leonard

 

[VWWall]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

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

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

Don't forget to renew it before June 16. From FCC:

KA9WGN Radio Service HA - Amateur
Status Active Auth Type Regular
Dates
Grant 06/16/1998 Expiration 06/16/2008
Effective 11/13/2003

<snip personal info>

--
Virg Wall

 

[Tony Hwang]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

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



Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or
_wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of dollars worth of
damage. I had a studio building and STL tower in Leesburg Florida hit
by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete from the building where
the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical. It WAS an excellent example
of _wacko_tom's UFER ground, before the steel vaporized inside damp
concrete. 95% of the damage was caused by the EMP. I lost the 11 GHz
Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system, all the computer terminals,
and had some minor problems with other electronics. It turned out that
the dead terminals all had high ESR electrolytics, and that they were
working because they were all on UPS before the strike took out all the
electricity. The power 1A2 supply needed some of the weird WE fuses,
one KTU card and was back in service. The STL was mounted on the tower
in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO module. It was 20 years old, and
at least 10 years obsolete, so it needed that module updated, anyway.

I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a STL
transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for repair &
upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I waited for the
new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we had been hit. Then I
moved the microwave racks to a closet in the corner of the building, and
used 4" EMT between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
have had strikes since then, but no problems.


Hi,

Qucik check on Buckmaster shows he was born in '55. Technician
plus(novice) holder. For his age, does not seem to have corresponding
wisdom.

 

[Tony Hwang]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

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

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

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

Hmmm,

Lenz and Hertz?

 

[Tony Hwang]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

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

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

Plonk!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bud--]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

|> | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
|> | the experiment".
|
|> I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
|> the explanations.
|
| Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
| reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
| of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
| for which you have no supporting cite.

You are likely to never see any citation that attests to what I believe.

Because some of what you believe has nothing to do with the real world.

| And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
| by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
| apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
| with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.

I've _met_ electrical engineers that are idiots. I've met people in a
lot of other fields that are idiots.

I don't know if the authors of what you have read are idiots. Maybe they
are just not writing as broadly as you think they are.

Of course they are idiots. They are all members of the IEEE. Only idiots
can join. And only the biggest idiots can write publications for the IEEE.

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

Thank goodness you aren’t a member.

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

I addressed this one elsewhere. You seem to have misunderstood him.
He did not say that wiring systems do not exhibit transmission line
characteristics.

If you had actually read the quote:
"*it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line concepts to
wiring systems*"
and "*this means that the line must be at least 200 m long before one
can think in terms of classical transmission line behavior*."

Repeating: "Residential branch circuits aren't 200m."

Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases.

Like branch circuits under 200 meters long.

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

So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?

I intended "induced" meaning produced by including the most damaging -
strikes to utility lines.

I didn't see where you quoted anything by IEEE or its experts that specify
actual rise times of any kind of surge, induced or otherwise.

From the Martzloff quote you didn't read:
"For a 1.2/50 us impulse". That is 1.2 microseconds rise time.

From w_'s favorite engineer source "an 8 microsecond rise time".

Don’t you read anything?

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

| One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
| rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
| with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don?t get transmission line
| effects at 100kHz.

I agree that you don't get transmission line effects under 100 kHz for 200m
wires ... of any significance to worry about for surge matters.

OTOH, you have not shown how even if an 8 microsecond rise time is significant
as a representative case, that it can't get shorter than that in severe cases.
or even a higher rise voltage (which hasn't even been specified at all here).

I provided 2 direct sources. They follow IEEE standards for rise time.

Still never seen - a cite that supports your opinion.
It is Phil’s phantasy physics.


--
bud--

 

[bud--]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:

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

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

With no service panel suppressor it is well accepted that at about 6kV
there will be arc-over from bus to enclosure for (US) circuit breaker
panels. While arcing, the voltage will be hundreds of volts. Since the
panel/system ground is connected to the earth electrode (US) most of
surge energy is dumped to earth.

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

--
bud--

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Timothy Daniels wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

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

[ElectoMagnetic Pulse]

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

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

and that they were working because they were all on UPS

[Uninterruptible Power Supply]

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

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

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

[Local Oscillator]

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

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

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

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

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

The same thing we did in the studios and transmitter sites. Use a
combination of protection at the building's main disconnect, and
individual protection at each critical device. The only thing that I've
lost in the last ten years was when lightning hit a huge pine tree, and
cut the top half of it off. It landed on the ground right over the
buried telephone line, and a second strike blew out the modem and MOV
protection on the phone line. It also destroyed that underground phone
line. The replacement is in 1" PVC conduit to make it easier to
replace, just in case. I live right on the edge of a protected green
belt, in north central Florida. The tallest of those trees would fall a
couple feet from my house.

I lost power from that strike, but no other electronics.


--
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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

On May 3, 11:38 pm, Tony Hwang <drago...@shaw.ca> wrote:
I experienced a direct lightning strike on a 7 story building. In the
basement there was a large(I mean LARGE) scale data center which I was
in charge of.
The strike clobbered all the data stored in mass storage sub system
requiring 3 days' total system restore. I think when surge is BIG,
nothing can be protected from it.

Broadcasting electronics atop the Empire State Building and World
Trade Center were struck 25 and 40 times annually without damage.

yawn. WTF does this have to do with residential electrical service?

Commercial broadcasters with antennas thousands of feet up also suffer
such strikes and cannot suffer damage.

Bullshit. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
are blowing smoke.

Your telco with switching
centers in every town; with their $multi-million switching computer
connected to overhead wires all over town; must suffer such surges
routinely without damage.

More bullshit. They use the best protection that can, but some
damaged does happen.

Mid 1900 research indicates a thunderstorm
typically creates maybe 100 surges - and no damage.

Typical lightning storms in Florida are 1000 to 15000 in a half hour.

Likely the outgoing path through that scale was via concrete floor.
What was the incoming path? Well what in that circuit was damaged?
Or was it only data loss, which means hardware protected itself when
too much surge current was permitted inside the building?

How many days did your telco require to reprogram that switching
center computer after every thunderstorm?

What reprogramming?

They can suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm and not even suffer data loss - let alone
hardware damage?

No.

Exactly.

No.

Effective protection means every wire in
every incoming cable has a short connection to earth via a 'whole
house' protector AND separation of up to 50 meters between the
protector and electronics. Not used are plug-in protectors. Any
protection that would work at the equipment is already inside the
equipment. Not acceptable is damage from lightning – even data loss.
And if damage does occur, telco located and corrected an earthing
defect.

Another example in Central Florida where Orange County's emergency
response system suffered lightning damage. Lightning damage
eliminated by fixing the defect - earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Same is described by van Deursen and van der Laan when lightning
caused damage to a nuclear hardened maritime radio station. Did they
cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can stop lightning damage"? Of course not.
Their IEEE paper describes how earthing defects (human failures) were
fixed. Lightning damage directly traceable to a defect in the
earthing system – human failure.

It is routine to suffer even the most massive surges and no surge
damage. Lightning routinely strikes communication facilities on Hoher
Peissenberg mountain in southern Germany - without damage.
Researchers even mounted electronics equipment to measure the currents
of each surge. Did direct lightning strike destroy that electronics
and communication equipment? Or course not. It is routine to suffer
direct strikes without electronics damage. However the human must
first learn what provides that protection - especially proper
connections to earth ground.

What makes surge protection so challenging? We can test other
designs. But we cannot test the surge protection system. Therefore,
when damage does occur, the responsible human locates and learns his
mistake - often must correct a defective in that earthing system.
Numerous professional citations also describe learning from the damage
because lightning damage is so easily avoid.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. As Phil
correctly notes:
But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on it.

Simple earthing to meet NEC requirements creates significant
protection. High reliability facilities may spend even hundreds more
to obtain but a little more protection. On average, a destructive
surge may occur once every seven years. How much would you spend.
$20 for some earthing rods to significantly upgrade protection; or
$hundreds to also have protection installed in Central Florida:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
How much was that data worth? A question asked of others since Tony
Hwang routinely denies this stuff. He suffered massive station
damage. Then he declared nothing can protect from lightning even
though his industry peers says completely otherwise.

More bullshit.


--
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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Tony Hwang wrote:

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

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

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

Plonk!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Phil is as deluded as ever.


--
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

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

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.

Any competent source (including the IEEE guide) along with any competent
manufacturer will tell you all interconnected equipment needs to be
connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need
to go through the suppressor. External connections, like phone, also
need to go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the
suppressor prevents damaging voltages between wires going to the
protected equipment.

This is apparently way to complicated for w_ to understand.

For a more detailed explanation, read (starting pdf page 39) the IEEE
guide titled "Ground potential rise"
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf

The same section explains how plug-in suppressors work.

Plug-in protector is not for and does not claim to protect from this
typically destructive type of surge.

Complete nonsense. Just another of w_'s bizarre ideas.

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.

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

The point of the illustration for the IEEE is "to protect TV2, a second
multiport protector located at TV2 is required." Apparently a radical
idea for w_.

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service 'ground' is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

What would have avoided above network damage? Homeowner later
installed and earthed a 'whole house' protector.

A power service suppressor is a real good idea. It does not protect
equipment connected to both power and signal wires if there is a high
voltage between those wires as in the example above. There are other
hazards that it also misses.

For independent advice read the IEEE or NIST guides. (Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective).

--
bud--

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

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

Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
protects from surges that rarely damage appliances.

Complete nonsense.

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

The lie resurrected.
Still missing - a link to any source that says UL listed plug-in
suppressors made after 1998 are a problem.

And undersized is a red herring. UL requires at least a minimal size.
Suppressors with much higher ratings are readily and cheaply available.

Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
protector, then surge energy somehow disappears.

Poor w__ is unable to understand the IEEE guide. Clearly explained
(starting pdf page 40) - plug-in suppressors work primarily 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 (or
stopping or absorbing). The guide also explains earthing occurs
elsewhere, not through the plug-in suppressor.


Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors?
- 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)?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

 

[bud--]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

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

Bud either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it.

Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)

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

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

--
bud--

 

[bud--]

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet <nospam@noway.com> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:fvjhvk016vr@news5.newsguy.com...
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
|
|
|> The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping. The surge will
|> take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
|> MOVs. In general, about 50% will go each way. That can vary at higher
|> frequencies.
|
| Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
| impedance of each direction? When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
| very low impedance.

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

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

Two sources directly contradict Phil.

Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.

--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

On May 4, 3:46 am, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

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

Black AC wire surge is now shunted (clamped, diverted) to white
wire. Surge now has two paths to obtain earth ground via the TV.

One most common path to ground is TV's cable. Why? Cable TV is now
properly installed - connected (bonded) typically 'less than 10 feet'
to earth ground at the service entrance. If an AC line surge is
earthed at that same service entrance using the single point earth
ground, then no destructive surge circuit exists through that two wire
TV.

But the home owner believed myths of plug-in protectors instead of
learning why earthing (and 'whole house' protectors) is so important.
Whereas surge on cable TV is dissipated in earth, simultaneous surge
on AC electric arrives at an adjacent protector, is shunted to white
(neutral) AC wire, and now has two destructive paths via that TV to
earth ground. Eliminate the plug-in protector to have only one
potentially destructive incoming path (increased protection). Or
properly earth a 'whole house' protector to have zero potentially
destructive paths.

 

[krw]

In article <d4a62a8a-464b-461f-a297-b6bc581749c3
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, w_tom1@usa.net says...

On May 4, 9:57 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)

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

Every Bud citations contradicts Bud's claims.

Don't be so stupid.

So Bud must do what
those without knowledge do - post insults.

Anything truthful posted about you would be an insult to a normal
person.

Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.

Bullshit. Either you're a goddamned liar or are denser than a
concrete slab. He's repeatedly said there is *no* protection from a
direct strike (except to be elsewhere).

Good. Bud can post those manufacture spec numbers that list each type
of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. 400 requests and Bud
still cannot provide any specs? So Bud must post insults.

Ok, that answers it. You *are* a liar.

How to identify the liar - who does exactly what Rush Limbaugh
does? He posts no facts (no manufacturer spec numbers) and his posts
are only insults. Bud posts only insults. That says Bud lies (and
that he has not technical facts). But then profits are at risk. That
justifies anything.

There goes W, doing what he claims others do; not only stupid, but a
liar and hypocrite, to boot.

--
Keith