Surge / Ground / Lightning

[w_tom]

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.
Commercial broadcasters with antennas thousands of feet up also suffer
such strikes and cannot suffer damage. 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. Mid 1900 research indicates a thunderstorm
typically creates maybe 100 surges - and no damage.

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

 

[w_tom]

On May 4, 11:13 am, Tony Hwang <drago...@shaw.ca> wrote:

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

Technology cannot be challenged? So you attack the messenger? Rush
Limbaugh would be proud. Same mockery also proved Saddam had WMDs.
At what point do you learn from professional citations - ask questions
about the science?

Ham radio operators who actually know enough about electricity to
understand surge protection also define protection in terms of
earthing. How many QST articles did you ignore – therefore not
understand what Phil, et al post? Another ham who learned: Bill
Otten in rec.radio.shortwave on 5 Aug 2005 entitled "grounding and
surge":
http://tinyurl.com/79xoa
and
http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/

Another station engineer who also says surge damage is avoidable -
but then, unlike Tony Hwang, he did his job; learned from his
experience:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a
strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines
knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to
go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just
a low ohm DC path.

You claim to be a responsible station engineer. But you had a
lightning strike that created building damage and communication
equipment damage. No decent broadcasting engineer would have
considered that acceptable. Only one who did not even learn from QST
magazine would post foolishly blame Ufer grounds for making damage.

Yes an Ufer ground can result in damage when installed by a layman
who failed to learn the science. Rather than learn, Tony Hwang
declares failure as acceptable. Why are Ufer ground used? Because
Ufer grounding provided protection from direct strikes even to
munitions storage lockers - without damage. How curious. Ufer ground
work great where Tony Hwang is not in charge. Since Tony's facility
was not properly constructed or properly maintained, then Tony
considers damage acceptable. Failure is acceptable.

Educated station managers know lightning damage need not ever cause
damage. When damage does happen, then responsible station managers
find and eliminate the mistake. Tony Hwang knows otherwise; damage is
acceptable - that nothing can protect from lightning. So Tony Hwang
posts mockery and insults - and no technical facts.

How curious. Tony's peers learn from the damage, then eliminated
it.

 

[w_tom]

On May 4, 2:55 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:

I don't agree with that assessment of the plug-in protector. If the
appliance has its own MOVs to protect stuff, then this would be true.
Not all do. Some appliances are more sensitive than others. It just
depends on what kind of surge is arriving, and where from. If it is
differential mode on the power wires, the plug-in protector can do
some important protection. Even with whole house protection in place,
you can have some energy get past it, and the surge can be induced into
the building wiring. Usually the induced surge is common mode, which
by itself is less of a problem.

In short, your post is saying what my post said. 120 volt
electronics have long had protection up to 600 volts as defined by
industry standards. This was always accomplished without MOVs.
Notice all the dimmer switches replaced weekly due to surge damage?
Not replaced because even those devices contain significant internal
protection - without MOVs.

The differential mode surge (what a plug-in protector can protect
from) typically does no damage as indicated by the large numbers of
appliances - even smoke detectors - that survive these trivial
surges. Survive without MOV protectors because internal protetion is
provided as part of the design - not an add on provided by MOVs.

The typically destructive surge occurs maybe one every seven years.
This is the surge that must be earthing before entering building.
This is the surge that so easily overwhelms protection inside
appliances. This is the surge that makes the properly earthing 'whole
house' protector necessary and so effective.

Yes, it is possible to make other protectors - absorption type.
Industry benchmarks also provide other examples including bulkheads.
Surges running through these bulkheads are further impeded. But each
is supplementary protection. To be effective, typically quite large
or expensive (Surgex, Brickwall, Zerosurge, etc). . How much is one
willing to spend? Effective supplmentary protection is also quite
expensive. Anything less is already found inside an appliance.

Yes, a plug-in protector can provide protection. Does it increase
protection by 80% or 95%. Protection so massive that the homeowner
may never see another surge in his lifetime?. Even a simplest
(properly installed) 'whole house' protector should provide protection
that significant. Without that 'whole hosue' protector, then plug-in
protectors may even contribute to appliance damage. To be effective -
to not contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance, a plug-in
protector needs a properly earthed 'whole house' system. Again, I
have not talked pass Bud. Bud promotes supplemental protection as a
complete solution. Defined by you and I are a surge a plug-in
protector might protect from AND why a plug-in protector can also
contribute to appliance damage.

Yes, your TV antenna examples are also correct - including how
either can be damaged. That being too complicated for most readers
AND irrelevant if both antenna wires are properly installed. Before
antenna wires enter a building, both antenna wires must first make a
short connection to the single point earth ground - meaning protection
standard in TV tuners should not be overwhelmed. Same protection also
installed by the cable company.

Only Bud is limiting himself to one aspect of the issue. You and I
are both discussing the many types of surges including the other that
typically causes most damage. Bud must ignore that typically
destructive surge. Those surges also create Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000
volt earthed destructively through an adjacent TV. Those surges are
why his other citation says:

The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Those surges that typically do damage AND that plug-in protectors do

not claim to protect from - Bud ignores that entire discussion.

 

[w_tom]

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

Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.
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.

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.

 

[w_tom]

On May 3, 4:16 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

...
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.
...
Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
papers on surges and suppression.

Both of Bud's citations - guides for laymen - describe how a plug-in
protector can work AND how such devices can even create appliance
damage. Both state what an effective protector needs - short
connection to earth ground. Both state why a protector without
earthing can even contribute to appliance damage.

Even Martzloff is quite blunt about this. Bud quotes from Martzloff
selectively. Meanwhile this conclusion is so fundamental that
Martzloff makes it the first point in his IEEE paper:

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.

A plug-in (point of connection) protector can contribute to
appliance damage. Every Bud citation says that. Even Martzloff says
that. Why do professionals routinely install 'whole house' type
protectors instead of plug-in protectors? "Objectionable difference
in … voltages ... [when] protective devices are ... at the point of
connection". Industry professionals note this problem with plug-in
protectors. Also are those 'scary pictures of plug-in protectors
located where fire hazards are greater. Bud conveniently ignores all
that. Profits are at risk.

 

[w_tom]

On May 4, 9:14 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

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

People who are more than TV repairmen learn from their mistakes and
correct reasons for that failure. TV repairmen only fix defects -
never bother to learn how those failures can be avoided. Let's have
some fun. Let's reply using the same mockery and insult that Michael
uses. Except this post will be accurate about Michaels intelligence.

Others who bother to learn discover what happens when a radio
station repeatedly gets knocked off the air. Eventually that station
engineer may hire someone who knows more than a TV repairman. What
was the solution to so much radio station damage? They fixed mistakes
made by a naive station engineer. They installed and upgreaded
earthing. No more lightning damage.

Michael will deny reality because Michael knows without first
learning facts. Others can learn what Michael Terrell denies.
Lightning need not cause damage when one thinks, instead, like an
engineer. Michael Terrell who learned to think like and engineer -
not like the technician - would know this. Radio station repeatedly
damaged. Then they finally admited that failure is not acceptable:
http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/nebraska.html

Based on a belief that "too much" grounding was attracting
lightning strikes, grounding connections on the tower's six
sets of guy wires had been disconnected sometime in the
past (Figure 4). This action may, in fact, have helped direct
lightning discharge current down the antenna tower itself,
bringing the strike closer to the studio/transmitter building.

Why did the station engineer make damage easier? He could not
bother to learn about stuff even published in QST magazine - the ham
radio operator's magazine.

Why does Michael Terrell deny this? He is a technician - a TV
repairman. His posts attack the messenger rather than address
technology. Michael Terrell is correct. Some stations are knocked
off the air by lightning. Those with informed station engineers
correct the defect - learn from their mistakes and eliminate future
failures. Michael Terrell's attitude declares failure as acceptable.
But then Michael Terrell could not think like an engineer which is why
he also could never be promoted above enlistedman.

 

[G-squared]

On May 4, 9:24 am, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:

"w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote in message
snip
  We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors
short
(ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed.  Simple
stuff
that so confused trader.  trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read
what
was posted.   trader again demonstrates insufficient technical
kowledge justifies his mockery and insult.   Mythical MOV inside
appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to
see;
not what is posted.

 MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth.  Had trader read
what
was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent
fictional MOVs inside appliances.

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

You read sometimes like one of those old children's "Golden Books".

Hey, I LIKED reading Golden Books to my kids. They didn't like W-TOMs
posts at all.

GG

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

On May 4, 9:14 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Bullshit. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
are blowing smoke.

People who are more than TV repairmen learn from their mistakes and
correct reasons for that failure. TV repairmen only fix defects -
never bother to learn how those failures can be avoided. Let's have
some fun. Let's reply using the same mockery and insult that Michael
uses. Except this post will be accurate about Michaels intelligence.

If that is true, you will never learn anything. _wacko_tom. BTW, if
you are going to damn others, al least proofread your message before you
hit send. I'm sorry that yo never made it past TV repairman, but I left
that field in the early '70s. That was over 35 years ago, on the day I
was drafted. You are still stuck in the past, quoting things from
organizations that either no longer exist, or have updated their
information. Tell us _wacko_tom, how much of your work is in orbit? Or
used by NASA, NOAA, or the ESA? Tell everyone what you do for a living,
then bore us to death with more of your inane BS, like your claim that
all computers MUST work down to 90 volts because the now deceased CBEMA
said so. Or the fact that you refuse to admit that new version of
standards supersede older ones.

Now, lets examine your intelligence. ... ... ... 0.000. Well, that
didn't take very long.


--
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:

Rush Limbaugh would be proud.

Only of your unending ignorance. That is, if he wasn't afraid that
you were trying to take his job as a fat, drug addicted idiot with a
talk show.


--
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

 

[w_tom]

On May 4, 11:35 am, Mike Tomlinson <m...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:

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

If must be said eight times - and still not understood by trader -
because that is the point. He does not want to understand it.

BTW, prim and proper Englishmen insist we must never mix first,
second, and third person. They don't worry about being misinterpreted
since misinterpretation is part of being prim and proper.

Better is to mix first and third person often so that the only
thing important - the message - cannot be misconstrued. If he chooses
to do so, no problem. If w_tom chooses to do so, no problem. If I
choose to do so, no problem. Exact same meaning to everyone except
the prim and proper Englishman who would now get all caught up in a
tizzy.

No problem. trader still will deny a fact stated eight times.

All appliances contain internal protection. That protection is not
provided by MOVs no matter how many times trader says otherwise.
Protection that may be overwhelmed if the typically destructive surge
is not earthed by a 'whole house' protector. Facts remain no matter
which person is used.

Again, referring to trader's latest myth: increasingly complex
electronics now contain even better protection than those earlier,
less complex electronics. Today, international standard now require
signal interface ICs to withstand 2000 and 15,000 volts without
damage. Previous interfaces in less complex electronics could only
withstand 30 or 40 volts. trader should have known these numbers long
before he posted more myths. Increasing complex electronics are even
more robust - less likely to suffer surge damage. But again, trader
knew long before learning any facts.

 

[w_tom]

On May 4, 1:24 pm, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:

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

Ask polite or technical questions, and get straight honest
responses. If you think my tone was offensive, then review your
original post. Post like an emotional child and get a stern response.

Franc Zabkar asked a question without an incendiary intent.
Therefore a straight and honest answer. My posts to you was blunt and
honest. How blunt? It did not contain a single insulting statement or
implication. It was a hard straight answer - nothing more. And it was
appropriately terse where you make claims or denial without any
supporting facts. If you need sweet words, go find a spouse. Was
your question incendiary or based in technical curiosity?

You were neither mocked nor insulted. Your technical mistakes were
corrected accurately. Neither your emotions nor your children have a
place here. This is a technical discussion about an unpopular reality
– about facts known even 100 years ago and that contradict both
popular urban legend and retail store propaganda.

Nobody - you, me, or anyone else (should) cares about your
emotions. Your emotions don't belong in a technical discussion. You
were not mocked or insulted - just technically replied to. You don't
like the tone. Your first post set the tone. Anything after that was
simply your reflection in a mirror.

 

[Jitt]

In article <74683977-6a03-4695-a5a2-
156ba3653409@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, w_tom1@usa.net
says...

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?

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.

I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America

and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
computer power cords are 3 wire?

 

On Mon, 5 May 2008 09:28:05 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On May 5, 10:54 am, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America
and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
computer power cords are 3 wire?

(snip)

hot neutral ground


Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an explanation from w_ about how
surege protection inside that computer can work? Where is that
direct connection to earth ground, without which w_ says surge
protection is impossible? Does the computer have a mythical earth
ground inside? The answer is it doesn't. It is acting under exactly
the same limitations and uses the same components, typically MOVs to
do what a plug-in surge supressor does. w-'s answer to this is to
claim that electronics, appliances, etc do not use MOVs, a claim
previously smashed, because of course they do. Plus it really has
nothing much to do with the question anyway, because the computer,
appliance, etc still HAS NO DIRECT EARTH GROUND, without which w- says
protection is impossible.

I'm curous to know how surge suppression can work without a ground
(earth) of any sort. Does the "black box" detect overvoltage and
disconnect the power like an earth leakage safety switch?

This might be fine for a TV, but surely not for a computer.

I don't recall any computer I've owned that did not have a three wire
connection to the mains. That and a MOV is OK for smallish surges, but
I believe that for a large surge, the sort that will blow a telephone
off the wall, one needs a large, short-path earth for the surge
detector to dump the extra power down.

I've got a few plug in protectors here and there to sop up a small
spike, but when a storm is within a few km, I pull the phone wire out
of the ADSL router, and the plug out of the mains. If I'm working at
the time, I might just keep a watch on the weather radar and count
lightning fashes to thunder times. It's rare that I get interrupted. I
have underground power and phone lines so that gives a little extra
protection, I believe. I've been told that Australian phone lines are
the most vulnerable, and the most urgent to protect or disconnect.
I hope to be going wireless soon which obviates this problem.

jack

 

On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:21:16 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
<noone@nospam.void> wrote:

Ď "Tantalust" <Tantalust@paradise.net> Ýăńářĺ óôď ěŢíőěá
news:RPidnaZzhcrV0oXVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com...
"NB" <nobuyout@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b53f2fef-00bd-40d0-9ac1-c69b3bcadf52@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has
contained those keywords since 2001???

He an obsessive-compulsive disorder victim, apparently driven by some kind
of bizarre fetish involving ground rods.


What kind of ground rods? I prefer steel core, copper clad ones I even
have the special heavy hammer

I'm on 2000' of sand, and at the moment, my house earth is the copper
water pipes, but the water corp keep adding plastic bits here and
there, so I don't really trust it. I was going to hammer in a 20'
length of 3/4" copper pipe under a large tree which gets the drain
from my grey water. Probably the best I can do.

I'm not a full bottle on earth loops yet so i don't know about leaving
the water mains connection still connected.
What's the best way to test an earth?
I heard once that a large electric radiator (fire) connected between
active (hot) and the earth will glow as per normal if the earth has
good capacity. Perhaps a current comparison between the earth return
and neutral return would be more informative?


jack

 

On Mon, 5 May 2008 09:24:41 -0400, "Tantalust"
<Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote

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

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

As I understand it, there is not "protection", or "no protection"
That is, it is not black and white, but degrees of protection, as
there are degrees of surge, or spike.

There is absolute protection of whole of house costing many thousands
of dollars, with tinfoil hats thrown in at no extra cost
And there is $7 protection against weeny little spikes/surges, and
then there is everything in between at varying prices.

The old saw "you get what you pay for" is generally bullshit IMHO
You get what the bastard will let you get away with IME

jack

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <MPG.2288b7113e6f82e7989695@news.bcsupernet.com>, Jitt
<tser827@yahoo.com> writes

I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America
and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
computer power cords are 3 wire?

Many older domestic installations in N America are two-wire only (no
ground.)

In the UK and much of Europe, all outlets are grounded, so surge
protectors do work effectively. w_tom has been informed of this fact
many times but continues telling blatant lies, spreading FUD, and
misrepresenting what others write.

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

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <2seu14tkjc068ph626ahu4akieb1pqa38f@4ax.com>,
spamfree@spam.heaven writes

I'm curous to know how surge suppression can work without a ground
(earth) of any sort.

Surge suppressors usually have three MOVs: one between phase and
neutral, and one each from phase and neutral to earth.

On properly grounded outlets, such a suppressor can deal with an
incoming surge on phase or neutral in an effective manner by conducting
and diverting current to the other leg AND to ground, but their
effectiveness when used on ungrounded outlets is reduced, since the path
to ground doesn't exist.

w_twat chooses to conveniently ignore this fact and continues to peddle
his unique brand of lies, misrepresentation and FUD in his own
inimitable style, which another poster has described as "hostile".

It's telling that w_ was unable to understand that people perceive his
posting style as hectoring or hostile, which should give you some idea
of his mental state

Best place for w_'s posts is in the killfile.

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

 

On May 5, 1:44 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:

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

|> In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet <nos...@noway.com> wrote:|> | <phil-news-nos...@ipal.net> wrote in message

|> |news:fvjhvk016vr@news5.newsguy.com...
|> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
|> |
|> |
|> |> The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping.  The surge will
|> |> take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
|> |> MOVs.  In general, about 50% will go each way.  That can vary at higher
|> |> frequencies.
|> |
|> | Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
|> | impedance of each direction?  When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
|> | very low impedance.
|
|> There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
|> the impedance.  It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
|> itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
|> there.
|
| Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
| theory.

Not understanding it is your loss.

I have to agree that this is Phantasy Physics. We're supposed to
believe that a surge reaching a MOV is going to split 50-50, with half
of it going to the MOV path and half moving on down the line,
reagrdless of the impedance of the two paths? That would render all
surge protection about 50% effective.

| Two sources directly contradict Phil.

What sources?  Your truncated out of context quotes?

| Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.

I don't care.

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

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:82da8b44-e386-4911-94c0-99b0671599ee@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

People who are more than TV repairmen learn from their mistakes and
correct reasons for that failure. TV repairmen only fix defects -
never bother to learn how those failures can be avoided. Let's have
some fun. Let's reply using the same mockery and insult that Michael
uses. Except this post will be accurate about Michaels intelligence.

I am merely a TV repairman who happens to have quite a bit of education, and
has done much research on the matter. We began installing good basic MOV
based suppression on our clients' systems long ago, using system level units
that protect all incoming lines. We also pay close attention to proper
grounding. What we have found over many years of this practice in one of
the most lightning intense areas of the USA, is that our systems never take
damage. During times of high thunderstorm activity, however, we see several
times the repair volume, and invariably, the user did not use a surge
suppressor. Our clients are happy with the systems that we sell and with
the reliability. There are good reasons to suspect that system level surge
suppressors do work, but grounding cannot be ignored.

As for you w_tom, you have done far more to clutter groups than to provide
any useful information. While your emphasis on grounding is good advice,
much of the rest of your arguments are out of context and misleading.
Michael may be a crochety ass sometimes, but at least he consistently
provides useful information. Stick to preaching the importance of grounding
and give the rest a break.

Leonard

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <481f4eb2$0$31762$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Timothy Daniels
<SpamBucket@NoSpamPlease.biz> writes

Does that mean a combination of w_tom's "whole house protection"
and individual "surge protectors" at those "critical devices"? That's
what I've always felt would be prudent - not a single method of
protection, but a combination.

Yes, but the environment in which the protected dwelling is situated
should also be taken into account. For example, a house in Florida,
with its overhead power lines and frequent thunderstorms, would be a
more likely candidate for a combined approach to surge protection.

On the other hand, installing Florida-levels of protection in a house in
the UK with its infrequent storms, reliable underground power supply and
a decent electrical system with properly earthed sockets, would be a
waste of money.

It is those nuances that w_twat fails to explain when he spouts his one-
cure-for-all-ills religious mantra about every dwelling absolutely
requiring whole-house surge protection. Like another poster to this
thread has said, things are never black and white, but shades of grey.
The sensible approach is to evaluate the risk and install an appropriate
level of protection.

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