Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 1, 12:57 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

No surge protection stops or absorbs the common mode
surge - surge that typically causes appliance damage.

Never explained - how does a common mode surge on incoming power lines
get past the N-G bond required in all US services.

A surge does not
enter on neutral wire. Both hot wires connect surges directly to
household appliances without any connection to earth.
..

A common mode surge to a TV enters on hot *and* neutral. The subject is
common mode - see the top quote. w_ has still not answered how a
common mode surge gets past the N-G bond required in US services. What a
surprise.
..

Both Bud citations....
..

Who (in this thread) says plug-in suppressors are effective?
- Nist guide
- IEEE guide
- IEEE Emerald book
- Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down house

Who says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective?
- w_
..

Bud still does not provide plug-in protector numeric specs that
claim protection.
..

As I have pointed out several times, specs have already been posted in
this thread.

w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels - if you repeat the lie often enough,
people will believe it. Too bad w_, it doesn’t seem to be working.


But still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?

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

--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 2, 10:51 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

Who (in this thread) says plug-in suppressors are effective?
- Nist guide
- IEEE guide
- IEEE Emerald book
- Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down house

Every one shows or states that the plug-in protector can contribute
to appliance damage. Every one states why the effective protector
must be earthed. But when one's job is to lie to promoted scam
protector sales, then one must deny what ever source says is necessary
for protection.

In every case, the protector is only a connection (diverts to) earth
ground. From Bud's NIST citation:

A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

From Martzloff:

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.

Iif this was wrong, then Bud would post those numeric specs on every
plug-in protector that lists each type of surge and protection from
that surge. Why does Bud refuse to post those specs? Even the
manufacturer will not make Bud's protection claims. Bud cannot post
protection specs because not one plug-in protector makes that claim.
So Bud does what a sales promoter must do when confronted by an
engineer - lie.

The effective protector *diverts* surge energy into earth. A surge
not dissipated in earth will be dissipated destructively inside
appliances. It is that simple. Bud must lie, spin, and insult to
avoid that reality. Bud's job is to protect obscene profits. Honesty
is not Bud.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 2, 10:51 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Who (in this thread) says plug-in suppressors are effective?
- Nist guide
- IEEE guide
- IEEE Emerald book
- Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down house

Honesty
is not Bud.
..

Intelligence is not w_.

Ho-hum. Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?

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

--
bud--

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 3, 12:47 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

Intelligence is not w_.
Ho-hum. Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

However, if his plug-in protector did provide
protection, then Bud could simply post those numeric specs.
..

The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.

But still not provided - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?

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

--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 3, 12:47 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

Intelligence is not w_.
Ho-hum. Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

When reality threatens profits, Bud often posts insults in the
tradition of Rush Limbaugh. To some, insults are proof. Even Bud's
NIST citation says what an effective protector does:

What these protective devices do is neither
suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert
it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Which is it? Magically suppress that surge energy as Bud says, or
divert surge energy to earth?

Sun Microsystems' Planning Guide for a Sun Server Room says same:

Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can
be diverted. ... These [protectors] should divert the
power of the surge by providing a path to ground
for the surge energy.

Bud promotes protectors that have no earth ground. Even his own
citations demonstrate damage when a protector does not have a short
earthing connection. Page 42 Figure 8. That surge still must find
earth ground. A plug-in protector simply gave that surge more paths
to earth - 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances.

Bud - whose job is to protect obscene profits - will say anything to
avoid facts. However, if his plug-in protector did provide
protection, then Bud could simply post those numeric specs. Oh? No
plug-in protector will claim protection in numeric specs? No wonder
Bud will ask irrelevant questions, post insults, and never post those
specs. Bud cannot post spec numbers that do not exist. So Bud will
even post insults - because profits are at risk.

Bud never provides a solution for the OP. Bud cannot. The OP's
solution is also the best protection for all homes. No two wire to
three wire receptacle upgrades required. Simply upgrade breaker box
earthing to meet and exceed post 1990 code (also provides human
safety) AND install one 'whole house' protector. Best solution also
costs less money.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 7, 11:16 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.

More insults from Bud who cannot answer the only relevant fact.

How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 7, 11:16 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.

More insults from Bud who cannot answer the only relevant fact. Where
does a plug-in protector manufacturer claim protection in numeric
specs? Bud refuses.

Even every one of Bud's citations from the NIST and IEEE show how and
why plug-in protectors don't provide protection AND can contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

No earth ground means no effective protection. But a $3 power strip
with some ten cent parts selling for up to $150 is promoted by Bud.
Profits - not protection - are Bud's purpose. Effective protector has
a short connection to earth.

Bud will reply with more insults and still no manufacturer specs.
Even manufacturers do not claim what Bud posts. Honesty is not Bud.
Posting insults when engineering facts do not exist – that is the
sales promoter Bud.

 

[bud--]

Sjouke Burry wrote:

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 7, 11:16 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.

More insults from Bud who cannot answer the only relevant fact.

How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

And the #1 question w_ can't answer:
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?

--
bud--

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

bud-- wrote:

Sjouke Burry wrote:
w_tom wrote:
On Jul 7, 11:16 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.

More insults from Bud who cannot answer the only relevant fact.

How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

And the #1 question w_ can't answer:
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?

--
bud--

He gets more respect than he deserves. He would have embarrassed
Rodney Dangerfield.


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

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

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:21:57 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:

On Jul 7, 11:16 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.

More insults from Bud who cannot answer the only relevant fact. Where
does a plug-in protector manufacturer claim protection in numeric
specs? Bud refuses.

---
I doubt whether that's true, since it would just be another one of
your many lies, but _I_ posted links to manufacturers who _do_ specify
their plug-in protectors in terms of energy-handling capacity.

Seems you glossed over that in order not to have to admit that you
were wrong.
---

Even every one of Bud's citations from the NIST and IEEE show how and
why plug-in protectors don't provide protection AND can contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

---
I haven't seen the reference, but I'd guess that had that TV also been
protected by an adequate plug-in protector it would have suffered no
damage.
---

No earth ground means no effective protection.

---
Not at all true, and earlier posts of mine have shown why your
persistent arguments to the contrary are unfounded and reveal your
basic ignorance of the subject matter to which you claim expertise.

Posts which, by the way, considered the effects of the impedance of
the wiring, but which you didn't understand and, therefore, to which
you couldn't admit agreement, not being able to grasp the concept of
imaginary quantities, as well as not being able to admit error.

Sad.
---

But a $3 power strip
with some ten cent parts selling for up to $150 is promoted by Bud.
Profits - not protection - are Bud's purpose. Effective protector has
a short connection to earth.

---
Regardless of the length of the connection to earth, or whether
there's any connection to earth at all, effective surge protection is
anything which can limit the voltage across the mains to less than
that which will damage the device, and plug-in protectors can do that.
---

Bud will reply with more insults and still no manufacturer specs.
Even manufacturers do not claim what Bud posts. Honesty is not Bud.
Posting insults when engineering facts do not exist – that is the
sales promoter Bud.

---
So far, I'd say Bud's batting about 900 and you shouldn't even have
stepped up to the plate.

You obviously know nothing about the game and are just trying to bluff
your way through it by trying to convince everyone that the foul balls
you hit (off of good pitches, BTW) were home runs.

JF

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 7, 1:33 pm, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnlll>
wrote:

How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

You criticize but never provide basic electrical principles as even
taught in first year EE courses. Don't forget to cite your designs
that did and did not prevent surge damage as I have. Of course you
have generations of experience building this stuff? Or do you know
only because plug-in protectors are promoted just like Saddam's WMDs?

Even Bud's citations state why a plug-in protector does and does not
work. Even demonstrated is a plug-in protector contributing to
appliance damage - as we engineers have also observed over the many
decades. Every responsible source says why a protector without
earthing does not provide protection. But if Sjouke knows better,
then why does he not post those facts and numbers?

Why do telcos not use Bud's 'clamping to nothing' principles? Why
do all responsible sources state where surge energy must be
dissipated? Sjouke - since you know better, then fill us with your
wisdom. Tell us how Bud's protector - that does not even claim to
provide protection - somehow earths surges. Explain how Bud's
'clamping to nothing' makes surge energy disappear.

Or do you just know (as so many others) because you were educated by
retail salesmen? The majority also *proved* Saddam had WMDs using
Sjouke's logic.

 

[Baron]

w_tom Inscribed thus:

Drivel Snipped.

--
Best Reagrds:
Baron.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 7, 6:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I doubt whether that's true, since it would just be another one of
your many lies, but _I_ posted links to manufacturers who _do_ specify
their plug-in protectors in terms of energy-handling capacity.
Seems you glossed over that in order not to have to admit that you
were wrong.

John cited a protector's joules as proof that protectors work by
absorbing all of a surge. If true, then a better protector - with
more joules - will absorb even more surge joules? Wrong. A better
protector - higher joules - absorbs *less* joules. Why? Obvious if
grasping what every citation says or reading MOV V-I curves.

Example: a 100 joule MOV conducting 2000 amperes will absorb about
100 joules - trivial energy (a kilowatt hour is 3.6 million joules) -
while dissipating maybe 5000+ joules into earth. A ten times larger
(1000 joule 'whole house') protector absorbs less: 75 joules during
the same 2000 amp surge. Why? Better protection means the protector
absorbs even less energy in direct contradiction to what John Fields
only assumed.

Protectors don't work by absorbing the surge just like wires do not
work by absorbing energy. Better protectors and wires absorb even
less energy. Effective protection *diverts* more surge energy into
earth. How does John Fields deny this? He cites the definition of
joules in Wikipedia rather than learn what those joules actually
measure in datasheets.

John also confuses a typically non-destructive surge with common
mode surges. Shunt (connect, clamp) all wires together and that surge
energy remains; still requiring a path to earth. Page 42 Figure 8 -
that John admits he did not read - demonstrated what a plug-in
protector (without earthing) does while shunting all wires together.
That surge energy still must find a path to earth ground - ie 8000
volts destructively via an adjacent TV. Shunting (clamping,
connecting) wires together does nothing to make that surge energy
disappear. This has been explained to John multiple times. But he
does not grasp the electrical concept of a common mode surge.

John suggests buying more plug-in protectors as Bud recommends. A
homeowner must purchase $2000 or $3000 in plug-in protectors. After
all, spending tens or 100 times less money to protect everything is
what - too smart? Why does John Fields recommend separate protectors
for the furnace, every clock radio, each GFCI, the microwave,
dishwasher, dryer, etc? John somehow knows that earthing, as
recommended by every responsible source, does not provide protection?

According to John, the OP must rewire an entire building with three
wire receptacles. But one 'whole house' protector with earthing (as
also required by code) answers the OP's questions while providing
effective and superior protection. A superior solution also costs
tens or 100 times less money. Somehow John Fields knows otherwise
while even refusing to read engineers teaching surge protection in
"Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".

John Fields does not even know the difference between wire impedance
and characteristic impedance. How does John Fields deny this? He
cites another Wikipedia article on characteristic impedance - and
still does not comprehend wire impedance. If John had engineering
training and understood common mode, then characteristic impedance
obviously is irrelevant. Characteristic impedance is not wire
impedance.

Provided was a front page article from Electrical Engineering Times
describing wire impedance AND why low wire impedance is essential for
surge protection. John refuses to read that either. John assumes
wire impedance and characteristic impedance is same. Therefore he
knows what a protector can work without grounding when all responsible
sources require that earthing.

A plug-in protector is complete protection? Good. John Fields then
posts manufacturer numeric specs for each type of surge and protection
from that surge. No such protection spec exists. Only listed are
joules. John Fields has so little grasp as to assume a few hundred or
1000 joules will absorb a direct lightning strike. Protectors don't
protect by absorbing the entire surge as John posts. But if
protectors did, well, a 1000 joule surge is a near zero (almost non-
existent) surge. Just another engineering fact that John did not
learn.

John - effective protection is not about limiting voltage between
two wires. Those surges typically are not destructive. Effective
protection is about diverting energy from every wire into earth. Only
shunt (clamp) some wires together and the surge still exists. Still
exists with more wires to find earth ground 8000 volts destructively
through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

John - you don't know the difference between characteristic impedance
and wire impedance. You cannot provide a spec that claims
protection. You don't understand what joules measures in an MOV -
higher joule protector means less joules is absorbed during the same
surge. You cannot even bother to read citations such as EE Times or
Page 42 Figure 8. You just know without first learning. And you
don't have EE training.

Effective protection means surge energy must be dissipated in earth
and before entering a building. That solution is available to the OP
- or did John Fields also forget the OP question?

 

[bud--]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 09:21:57 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:

Even every one of Bud's citations from the NIST and IEEE show how and
why plug-in protectors don't provide protection AND can contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

---
I haven't seen the reference, but I'd guess that had that TV also been
protected by an adequate plug-in protector it would have suffered no
damage.
---
Did you work for the Psychic Hotline? The point of the illustration for

the IEEE is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2
is required."

The illustration does not show a plug-in suppressor at TV1 contributing
to adjacent appliance damage. It is one of w_'s favorite lies.

--
bud--

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 7, 1:33 pm, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnlll
wrote:
How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

The majority also *proved* Saddam had WMDs using
Sjouke's logic.
..

w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the lack of supporting sources.


Like - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

And still missing - answers to embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?

Why can't you ever answer simple questions w_? Why should anyone
believe you???

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

--
bud--

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

bud-- wrote:

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 7, 1:33 pm, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnlll
wrote:
How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

The majority also *proved* Saddam had WMDs using
Sjouke's logic.
.
w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the lack of supporting sources.

Like - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

And still missing - answers to embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?

Why can't you ever answer simple questions w_? Why should anyone
believe you???

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

So does Progress Energy. They did a demo on TV with a pair of 120 V
100W lamps. They were plugged into two wall outlets. One was plugged
into a surge protector, and the other wasn't. The pair was hit with a
surge, and the unprotected bulb blew its filament.


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

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

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 05:04:16 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:

On Jul 7, 6:54 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
I doubt whether that's true, since it would just be another one of
your many lies, but _I_ posted links to manufacturers who _do_ specify
their plug-in protectors in terms of energy-handling capacity.
Seems you glossed over that in order not to have to admit that you
were wrong.

John cited a protector's joules as proof that protectors work by
absorbing all of a surge. If true, then a better protector - with
more joules - will absorb even more surge joules?

---
Yup.
---

Wrong.

---
Wrong.
---

A better protector - higher joules - absorbs *less* joules.

---
Nope, a better protector can absorb _more energy_, for a longer time,
while keeping the input to the appliance clamped to the voltage the
MOV is limiting it to, thereby keeping the appliance from taking the
hit.
---

Why? Obvious if grasping what every citation says or reading
MOV V-I curves.

---
But you don't even understand basic physics, as attested to by the
fact that you didn't even realize that a diagram I posted earlier
showed how an MOV works in a circuit containing a resistive load and
reactive mains conductors, so it's no wonder you're confused about
what the data sheets indicate.

If you're interested in pulling yourself out of the cesspool you've
voluntarily jumped into, then I suggest you hit the books for a while
and learn that a watt has time as a dimension and is a joule per
second, or a gazillion joules per gazillionth of a second, or...

JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 9, 2:27 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
But you don't even understand basic physics, as attested to by the
fact that you didn't even realize that a diagram I posted earlier
showed how an MOV works in a circuit containing a resistive load and
reactive mains conductors, so it's no wonder you're confused about
what the data sheets indicate.

And again, insufficient knowledge even for a technician.

Your ignorance knows no bounds, and you are too stupid to stop
parading it before the world.


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

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

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 9, 2:27 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

But you don't even understand basic physics, as attested to by the
fact that you didn't even realize that a diagram I posted earlier
showed how an MOV works in a circuit containing a resistive load and
reactive mains conductors, so it's no wonder you're confused about
what the data sheets indicate.

And again, insufficient knowledge even for a technician. If MOVs
work by absorbing surges, then voltage must increase to absorb more
surge. But MOVs don't do that. MOVs conduct more current (by
decreasing voltage) so that minimal energy is absorbed and more energy
can be dissipated elsewhere.

John saw the word 'joules', then assumed MOVs stop surges by
absorbing all joules. Well, yes, just like wire transfers energy by
absorbing all energy.

If John had studied V-I charts as an engineer, then daming evidence
would be obvious. Again the obvious example. Whereas the 100 joule
MOV absorbs 100 joules during a 2000 amp surge; the better 1000 joule
protector absorbs only 75 joules while conducting that same 2000 amp
surge. Why? Better surge protectors absorb LESS surge energy.
Obvous even in those V-I charts that John never studied.

John does what many TV repairmen do. He assumes that by shunting
two wires together, then surge energy will magically disappear.
Shunting two wires together only gives a surge more paths to find
earth ground. With or without those wires together, the surge still
most connect to earth. If one of those wires is a 'less than10 foot'
connection to earth, then all surge energy gets dissipiated harmlessly
in earth. If no earthing connection. then a surge has more wires to
find earth ground even destructively through adjacent appliances -
Page 42 Figure 8.

To understand this, John must learn what wire impedance is. But
John (without basic electrical training) confuses relevant wire
impedance with obvioiusly irrelevant characteristic impedance. Even
a trained tech would not make that mistake. John does not understand
wire impedance, did not study those MOV V-I charts, but magically
knows what MOVs do.

If MOVs works as John decrees, then why does a larger joule MOV
absorb so much less energy? Because an ideal best protector absorbs
no energy; diverts (shunts, connects, clamps) all surge energy
harmlessly into earth.

How does a tiny joule MOV absorb so much more energy? It does not.
Effective MOVs shunt surges to be dissipated in earth. John even
believes a 1000 joule MOV must absorb more energy. Hdid not even
comprehend MOV datasheets.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 9, 10:29 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

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

Page 42 Figure 8 shows damage inside the building because a surge
was not earthed by one 'whole house' proector. Bud now recommends
spending $3000 on plug-in protectors. You should replace these every
three years So what protects the dishwasher, furnance, smoke
detectors ... Oh. Instead of destroying TV2, other critical
appliances that cannot use plug-in protectors get destroyed. That is
Bud's recommendaton. Spend obscene money on his products.

One properly earthed 'whole house' protector means better protection
for everything at about $1 per protected appliance. How curious.
Where high reliability facilities need effective protection, plug-in
protectors are not installed. Less money spent using a 'whole house'
protector with proper earthing. Also superior protection. Plug-in
protextors cannot do what Bud's citation says a protector must do

... your surge protector will work by diverting the surges
to ground. The best surge protector in the world can be
useless if grounding is not done properly.

$3000+ of Bud's protectors are defined by the NIST as useless.
However one effective protector *diverts* surge energy harmlessly to
earth. An effective protector has that low impedance connection to
single point earth ground. Ineffective plug-in protectors - oh - its
numeric specs don't even claim protection. No wonder Bud refuses to
provide any manufacturer specs for protection. None exist.

Page 42 Figure 8 - another example of damage because a protector was
too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. Bud solution:
buy more. As every responsible source says including IEEE and NIST: a
protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Why do cable companies recommend removing that plug-in protector?
Even the cable (properly installed) is earthed. A surge earthed
before entering the building will not earth a surge 8000 volts
destructively through any TVs. Damage on Page 42 Figure 8 averted and
without any plug-in protectors..