Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

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.

Your lies know no bounds, as well.


--
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.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

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."

No wonder Bud refuses to
provide any manufacturer specs for protection. None exist.
..

Ho hum –the lie repeated a la Goebbels (at least the 4th time). Specs
were provided long ago.
..

a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..

And the required religious mantra.

But still no 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?


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

--
bud--

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net>
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.

---
A classic case of the moron calling the genius stupid because the
moron can't understand what the genius is talking about.

Read, for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varistor

Then, if you have any questions come back and ask them politely and
maybe someone will help you out.
---

If MOVs work by absorbing surges, then voltage must increase to absorb more
surge. But MOVs don't do that.

---
They don't?

Then why, in one of your earlier posts, did you state that as current
through the MOV increased its clamping voltage did also?

"That 150v MOV has 150 volts across it
when conducting how much current? Less than 1 milliamp. Why did you
not know what every protector designer would know? Take a 200 joule
MOV (V151CA32). What is that 150v MOV voltage when conducting an 8
amp surge? About 360 volts (not 150 volts)."
---

MOVs conduct more current (by
decreasing voltage) so that minimal energy is absorbed and more energy
can be dissipated elsewhere.

---
No, MOVs conduct more current by decreasing their resistance.

From the example you cited, we have that V151CA32 with 150V across it
allowing 1 mA of current through it.

That means its resistance under those conditions is:

E 150V
R = --- = -------- = 150000 ohms
I 0.001A


With 8A through it and 360V across it we have:


E 360V
R = --- = -------- = 45 ohms
I 8A


An exercise you should do is to take the data from the MOV's VI curve
and plot its resistance as a function of current. You might be
surprised with what you find if you can understand it.
---

John saw the word 'joules', then assumed MOVs stop surges by
absorbing all joules.

---
Cite?
---

Well, yes, just like wire transfers energy by absorbing all energy.

---
Your analogy is incorrect in that you're equating an MOV which has
been driven past its threshold to a piece of wire.

In other words, you think that an MOV's resistance, once it's been
"triggered", (like a perfect TRIAC, say) falls to a value
approximating that of a piece of wire, which isn't true.

Furthermore, if MOVs stopped surges by absorbing the entire surge
they'd have to be much larger than they are. In fact, what they do is
absorb as much energy as they have to while limiting the voltage
across themselves to as low a value as they can while charge flows
through them instead of the appliance they're protecting.

In other words, they absorb some of the transient, (as does the
protected appliance) while diverting as much as they can around the
appliance by limiting the voltage rise across the appliance.
---

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.

---
There's no question that for the same surge current some MOVs
dissipate less power than others but, by the same token, their price
increases because of the need for more material to generate more
"resistors in parallel" when the threshold voltage is exceeded,
thereby lowering the bulk resistance and lowering the current
"captured" by the MOV.

But the fact remains that no matter how big the MOV is, the voltage
across it rises as the current through it does also.
---

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.

---
Not true.

If a lightning strike hits the primary of a line transformer then the
transient induced in the secondary will exist whether the secondary is
grounded or not.
---

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?

---
See above.
---

Because an ideal best protector absorbs
no energy; diverts (shunts, connects, clamps) all surge energy
harmlessly into earth.

---
There is no such thing as an ideal best protector which absorbs no
energy.
---

How does a tiny joule MOV absorb so much more energy? It does not.

---
Geez, you just said it did a few sentences ago.
---

Effective MOVs shunt surges to be dissipated in earth. John even
believes a 1000 joule MOV must absorb more energy.

---
No, if it's rated at 1000 joules then it's _allowed_ to.

What do you think the rating's there for?
---

Hdid not even comprehend MOV datasheets.

---
Yeah, right...

JF

 

[Baron]

w_tom Inscribed thus:

On Jul 11, 8:45 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
But still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Bud is a sales promoter for plug-in protectors. He will even post
insult to protect those obscene profit margins on $3 power strips with
some ten cent parts. Bud's citations show how a plug-in protector may
even earth a surge 8000 volts destrutively through the adjacent TV -
Page 42 Figure 8. Bud's other citatoin is quite blunt about unearth
protectors:
The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Bud says no ground is necessary. Surge energy will magically
disappear with his miracle plug-in protector.

Where does Bud or Michael Terrell answer the OP's question? Neither
do. Their proof is in insult and lies. The informed consumer earths
only one 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected
appliance. Superior solution also required by the OP also costs tens
or 100 times less money. Bud must reply because obscene profits are
at risk. The informed consumer buys that effective 'whole house'
protectors from responsible companies such as Intermatic, Keison,
Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Levition, Siemens, or GE. Protectors that
make a short earth ground connection.

Where does that surge energy get dissipated? Bud and Michael claim
that energy will magically disappear. Responsible citations all state
that surge energy must be dissipiated in earth.

Only one spec matters. Manufacturer numbers for protection from each
type of surge. Bud refused to provide those numbers. No plug-in
protector claims effective protection. So Bud posts more insults
incessently and never answers the OP's question.

W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable !

--
Best Reagrds:
Baron.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 11, 8:45 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

But still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Bud is a sales promoter for plug-in protectors. He will even post
insult to protect those obscene profit margins on $3 power strips with
some ten cent parts. Bud's citations show how a plug-in protector may
even earth a surge 8000 volts destrutively through the adjacent TV -
Page 42 Figure 8. Bud's other citatoin is quite blunt about unearth
protectors:

The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Bud says no ground is necessary. Surge energy will magically

disappear with his miracle plug-in protector.

Where does Bud or Michael Terrell answer the OP's question? Neither
do. Their proof is in insult and lies. The informed consumer earths
only one 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected
appliance. Superior solution also required by the OP also costs tens
or 100 times less money. Bud must reply because obscene profits are
at risk. The informed consumer buys that effective 'whole house'
protectors from responsible companies such as Intermatic, Keison,
Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Levition, Siemens, or GE. Protectors that
make a short earth ground connection.

Where does that surge energy get dissipated? Bud and Michael claim
that energy will magically disappear. Responsible citations all state
that surge energy must be dissipiated in earth.

Only one spec matters. Manufacturer numbers for protection from each
type of surge. Bud refused to provide those numbers. No plug-in
protector claims effective protection. So Bud posts more insults
incessently and never answers the OP's question.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Baron wrote:

W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable !

You'd think that if he's going to keep prostituting himself, he would
come up with something entertaining once in a while. I guess there are
no smart trailer trash data whores on Usenet.


--
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 11, 11:02 am, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net>
wrote:

W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable !

You don't contribute anything technical. You don't ask any
technical questions. You only post insults. Why then do you keep
posting?

Boring? These principles have not changed in 100 years.
Destructive surges still seek earth ground as 100 years ago.
Protection has always been about diverting so that surge energy gets
dissipated harmlessly in earth - as ham radio operators demonstrated
80 years ago. But somehow a grossly overpriced protector will protect
by violating these well proven principles? Hardly.

Meanwhile, the OP asked about protection using only two wire
receptacles. Where do you offer the OP a solution? A solution that
requires no house rewiring and that is superior to any plug-in
protector was provided. Where is your solution?

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 11, 11:02 am, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net>
wrote:

W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable !

You don't contribute anything technical. You don't ask any
technical questions. You only post insults. Why then do you keep
posting?

Boring? These principles have not changed in 100 years.
Destructive surges still seek earth ground as 100 years ago.
Protection has always been about diverting so that surge energy gets
dissipated harmlessly in earth - as ham radio operators demonstrated
80 years ago. But somehow a grossly overpriced protector will protect
by violating these well proven principles? Hardly.

Meanwhile, the OP asked about protection using only two wire
receptacles. Where do you offer the OP a solution? A solution that
requires no house rewiring and that is superior to any plug-in
protector was provided. Where is your solution?

 

[Baron]

w_tom wrote:

The same post twice !

On Jul 11, 11:02 am, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net
wrote:
W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable
!

You don't contribute anything technical. You don't ask any
technical questions. You only post insults. Why then do you keep
posting?

Well you didn't get the gentle hints !

Boring? These principles have not changed in 100 years.

Principles may not have changed ! But techniques have !

Destructive surges still seek earth ground as 100 years ago.

I thought that was lightening !

Protection has always been about diverting so that surge energy gets
dissipated harmlessly in earth - as ham radio operators demonstrated
80 years ago. But somehow a grossly overpriced protector will protect
by violating these well proven principles? Hardly.

Are all energy surges due to lightening ?

Meanwhile, the OP asked about protection using only two wire
receptacles. Where do you offer the OP a solution? A solution that
requires no house rewiring and that is superior to any plug-in
protector was provided. Where is your solution?

For the OP case is there a superior solution ?

To be honest I don't know why I am wasting my time and bandwidth
encouraging you !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 12, 3:53 pm, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote:

Principles may not have changed !  But techniques have !
...
Are all energy surges due to lightening ?

If techniques have changed, then show me. Where is this technique
that makes the principles irrelevant? Yes, we have protector that are
smaller, last longer, and can earth more direct lightning strikes
without damage. But the 100 year old principles remain same. A
protector still must earth that surge energy AND the protector must
remain functional even after direct lightning strikes.

Are all surges due to lightning? Of course not. But any protection
'system' must earth direct lightning strikes and remain functional.
Another surge can be created by utility switching. A 'whole house'
system also makes that all other trivial surges irrelevant. One
protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Even with 100 plug-in
protectors - one for every smoke detector, dishwasher, clock radio,
etc - that same protection cannot be achieved.

Have techniques changed? Yes. Some manufacturers have discovered a
profit 'gold mine' selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts
for $25 or $150. Such protectors violate surge protection
principles. No problem. They are so profitable AND so many consumers
believe the myths.

From the IEEE Green Book entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :

Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

How do plug-in protectors get around such numbers? Plug-in
protectors make no numeric protection claims. Read it yourself.
Where does that plug-in protector list protection from each type of
surge in numeric specs? It does not. A complete solution - the plug-
in protector - does not even claim any protection? Of course not.
Why bother. Techniques have changed. Profits now trump protection -
when not using effective protectors.

Why does your telco switching center, that may suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm, not waste money on plug-in protectors? Why
do all telco facilities use 'whole house' protectors and earthing?
Rather obvious. Telco need effective protection. They don't have
money to waste on ineffective, and obscenely overpriced plug-in
protectors.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

Why does your telco switching center, that may suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm, not waste money on plug-in protectors?

Because their power supplies don't plug in. They rare relay rack
sized, and hardwired to a circuit breaker. Have you ever been in a CO?
Or a Telco boneyard? You need a forklift to move most of their power
supplies.

--
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 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:46:19 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net>
wrote:

Plug-in protectors make no numeric protection claims.

---
Not true.

I posted, earlier, links to manufacturers who _did_ rate their
protectors in terms of capability of energy absorption, but you seem
to have ignored that in your relentless quest for vain infallibility.
---

Read it yourself.
Where does that plug-in protector list protection from each type of
surge in numeric specs? It does not. A complete solution - the plug-
in protector - does not even claim any protection? Of course not.
Why bother. Techniques have changed. Profits now trump protection -
when not using effective protectors.

---
I'd like to say this kindly, since this is sci.electronics.basics but,
in view of your earlier posts I can't.

Basically, you're an idiot who has latched onto something he doesn't
understand, but thinks he does, and wants to challenge those of us
who do to a joust.

You don't have the skills to win but, I suggest that if you're
serious, and really think you can't be unhorsed you refer back to my
earlier post where I interposed the MOV between the wire impedances
from hot to the MOV and from the MOV to neutral.
---

Why does your telco switching center, that may suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm, not waste money on plug-in protectors? Why
do all telco facilities use 'whole house' protectors and earthing?
Rather obvious. Telco need effective protection. They don't have
money to waste on ineffective, and obscenely overpriced plug-in
protectors.

---
Again, apples and oranges.

JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 13, 12:21 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Why does your telco switching center, that may suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm, not waste money on plug-in protectors?

Because their power supplies don't plug in. They rare relay rack
sized, and hardwired to a circuit breaker.

Who said anything about power supplies?

Where else do you use a plug in protector, like the ones you keep
condemning?

Why do you assume?

I don't assume. I've seen the equipment, and the protection for the
Telco equipment. in fact, I've posted links to photos that clearly show
MOV surge protection built into Telco equipment, but you are too stupid
to see them for what they are. FYI, telco proctors are not plug in, they
are built into 66 style blocks, and other conventional telco hardware so
they can be installed in place of existing termination.

Telcos
have tens of thousands of overhead wires entering the building to
connect directly to a switching computer.

I haven't seen more than a couple temporary overhead telephone cable
in a long, long time. Most of it is fiber optic around here, and is
only copper for a mile or less.


_Wacko_, ignorance can be cured by education, but your 'stupid' is
forever. Not only are you stupid, you are extremely proud of how
bleeding stupid you present yourself.


--
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 13, 8:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I posted, earlier, links to manufacturers who _did_ rate their
protectors in terms of capability of energy absorption, but you seem
to have ignored that in your relentless quest for vain infallibility.

Had John learned how protectors work: it is a shunt mode protector.
They don't work by absorbing surges as John only assumes. Joules in
numeric specs do not make any claim for protection. What does more
joules mean? More joules means a protector absorbs even less surge
energy. More joules does not define protection - as John Fields
immediately assumes. No plug-in protector lists protection from each
type of surge. Plug-in protectors cannot protect from the typically
destructive surge.

John foolishly assumes more joules means more energy absorbed. But
shunt mode protectors don't protect by absorbing the surge. As so
many cited professional sources say: it works by ***diverting***
energy into earth where energy is harmlessly dissipated. From the
NIST:

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

John, you posted no technical facts. You post insults due to
insufficient technical knowledge. . John even confused characteristic
impedance with wire impedance. A mistake that a trained engineer
would never make.

John - joules is a measure of how MOVs conduct. A wire is rated in
amperes. Same conducting abilities for MOVs are measured in joules.

Facts that John does not even dispute: whereas a 100 joule MOV may
absorb 100 joules during a 2000 amp surge; a 1000 joule MOV may
absorb only 75 joules during the same 2000 amp surge. Better MOV
(higher joules) means the MOV absorbs even less energy. Why? Better
protection means even more energy is *diverted* into earth. Earth is
where tens or thousands of times more energy gets dissipated -
harmlessly.

John still did not understand MOV V-I charts. John's technical
proof is using the word 'idiot'. Just another indication of
insufficient electrical training. That same word also proved Saddam
had Wads.

John Fields saw a joules numbers. So he immediately assumed MOVs
protect by absorbing all of a surge - even though MOV datasheets and
E=IR says otherwise.

John - if you had EE training, then you would have never confused
characteristic impedance with wire impedance. You would have seen the
obvious - a larger joule MOV absorbs even less energy. A trained
engineer would understand this. Instead you post insults.

Whereas a 100 joule MOV may absorb 100 joules during a 2000 amp
surge; a large 1000 joule MOV would only absorb 75 joules. Better
protectors absorb even less energy - a direct contradiction to what
John Fields has assumed. Best protectors *divert* even more energy
dissipated in earth. Better protectors have better earthing because
earth (not a protector) provides the protection - absorbs surge
energy.

So where is that plug-in protector numeric spec that lists each type
of surge and protection from that surge? John Fields does not provide
what does not exist. John has foolishly assumed more joules define
protection. Monster Cable loves customers like John.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 13, 12:21 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

  Why does your telco switching center, that may suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm, not waste money on plug-in protectors?

   Because their power supplies don't plug in.  They rare relay rack
sized, and hardwired to a circuit breaker.

Who said anything about power supplies? Why do you assume? Telcos
have tens of thousands of overhead wires entering the building to
connect directly to a switching computer. Telco switching centers
suffer about 100 surges during every storm. So they disconnect all
incoming wires during every thunderstorm? Of course not. Telcos must
never suffer damage. Telcos use no obscenely overpriced plug-in
protectors. Instead, telcos install a protector up to 50 meters
distant from electronics AND as close as possible to earth ground.
What makes telco protectors effective? That short connection to earth
ground.

Telco also installs the equivalent solution on all subscriber lines
where their wires meter household wires. Again, what makes that
protector effective? Did you provide a sufficient single point earth
ground?

Apparently you have not learned how telco switching centers are
designed. Any wire not earthed - either directly or through a
protector - means surge energy is permitted inside the building. Any
surge inside a building means surges can seek earth ground
destructively via electronics. Protection is always about *diverting*
energy into earth; keep surge currents outside the facility. That
means ground connections measured in feet - shorter if possible.

No plug-in protector claims protection from typically destructive
surges. Obviously. No earth ground means no effective protection. A
protector does not provide protection. A protector is what *diverts*
surge energy into what provides protection - earth ground. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So telcos use
properly earthed protectors - do not waste money on obscenely
overpriced plug-in protectors.

Same surge can damage electronics in commercial broadcasting
stations, telco switching centers, airports, or homes. Now that homes
have electronics, protection routinely installed in other facilities
is now also required in homes. Protector that costs maybe $1 per
protected appliance. A less expensive solution is one 'whole house'
protector AND earthing upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC
requirements. Less expensive solution also is the superior solution.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why
telcos use earthed protectors - don't waste money on plug-in
protectors.

 

[Baron]

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 13, 8:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
I posted, earlier, links to manufacturers who _did_ rate their
protectors in terms of capability of energy absorption, but you seem
to have ignored that in your relentless quest for vain infallibility.

Its like an echo !

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:29:32 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net>
wrote:

On Jul 13, 8:52 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
I posted, earlier, links to manufacturers who _did_ rate their
protectors in terms of capability of energy absorption, but you seem
to have ignored that in your relentless quest for vain infallibility.

Had John learned how protectors work: it is a shunt mode protector.
They don't work by absorbing surges as John only assumes. Joules in
numeric specs do not make any claim for protection. What does more
joules mean? More joules means a protector absorbs even less surge
energy.

---
What you're doing is confusing the MOV's ratings with their resistance
at a particular current.

As I noted earlier, and which you conveniently failed to address, is
that an MOV rated higher in energy absorption capability than another
will have a lower resistance for the same current through it because
of its larger volume of conductive material.

That larger volume is what gives it a higher energy rating in that it
will take more energy to heat it to destruction, which is what this is
all about.
---

More joules does not define protection - as John Fields
immediately assumes.

---
It defines how much the protector, itself, can handle before it goes
belly-up which, I believe, is all any protector can do.
---

No plug-in protector lists protection from each type of surge.

---
Plug-in protectors are rated in energy-absorption capability, same as
any other. Furthermore, If they're UL listed I believe the testing
criteria will specify the type of surge.
---

Plug-in protectors cannot protect from the typically
destructive surge.

---
Poppycock. Plug-in protectors can, and do provide good protection from
many transients. If you want to get serious instead of playing your
bullshit games, then you'll quantify what you mean by "typically
destructive surge."
---

John foolishly assumes more joules means more energy absorbed.

---
As I've said over and over, and what you still don't seem to
understand is that the rating of the MOV, in joules, indicates how
much energy the MOV is _allowed_ to absorb before it becomes seriously
damaged.

Just as an example, assume that we have a 100 joule and a 200 joule
device and subject them to the same current starting at the same time.

Do you know what will happen to them in terms of temperature rise
versus time?

If you do, now would be a good time to expound on it.
---

But shunt mode protectors don't protect by absorbing the surge.
As so many cited professional sources say: it works by ***diverting***
energy into earth where energy is harmlessly dissipated. From the
NIST:
What these protective devices do is neither
suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

John, you posted no technical facts. You post insults due to
insufficient technical knowledge. . John even confused characteristic
impedance with wire impedance. A mistake that a trained engineer
would never make.

---
Actually, if you read that post again, you'll find that I gave an
example of the wiring acting like a parallel conductor transmission
line with a characteristic impedance, (which it looks like to the
fast-rising edges of the transient) as well as a lumped impedance of
120 ohms, which was based on the assumption _you_ posted.

If you couldn't tell the difference between the two then I suggest
it's _you_ who is lacking.

In addition, that post revealed that with plug-in protectors installed
a long wire run is beneficial; something you haven't chosen to or
can't debate.

I suspect that, due to ignorance, the latter is the reason for your
silence.
---

John - joules is a measure of how MOVs conduct.

---
No, it's a measure of how much energy an MOV can absorb before it
sustains thermal damage,
---

A wire is rated in amperes.
Same conducting abilities for MOVs are measured in joules.

---
No, an MOV's measure of current conduction is also given in amperes
(look at the data sheet) but its ability to sustain that current over
time, given the voltage dropped across the MOV, at that current, is
given in joules.
---

Facts that John does not even dispute: whereas a 100 joule MOV may
absorb 100 joules during a 2000 amp surge; a 1000 joule MOV may
absorb only 75 joules during the same 2000 amp surge.

---
So what?

The point isn't that the 1000 joule MOV will absorb less energy than
the 100 joule MOV, for the same shot, it's that the 1000 joule MOV
will be able to handle a 2000 ampere transient for about 133 times
longer than the 100 joule unit.
---

Better MOV (higher joules) means the MOV absorbs even less energy.
Why?

---
You keep asking that and I keep answering it, so you must have some
kind of learning disability or perhaps a very short attention span.

Here's the answer once again: Because the physically greater volume of
the larger MOV allows more parallel conduction paths through it than
are available through the smaller device.
---

Better protection means even more energy is *diverted* into earth. Earth is
where tens or thousands of times more energy gets dissipated -
harmlessly.

---
And your point is???
---

John still did not understand MOV V-I charts. John's technical
proof is using the word 'idiot'.

---
No, my use of the word 'idiot' was in reference to your apparent
inability to learn to understand some simple concepts, and has nothing
to do with _my_ understanding of MOV VI charts, which I assure you is
excellent!
---

Just another indication of insufficient electrical training.
That same word also proved Saddam had Wads.

---
You make absolutely no sense.

Wads and wads of money?
----

John Fields saw a joules numbers. So he immediately assumed MOVs
protect by absorbing all of a surge - even though MOV datasheets and
E=IR says otherwise.

---
Cite?
---

John - if you had EE training, then you would have never confused
characteristic impedance with wire impedance.

---
As I wrote earlier, it was clearly _you_ who couldn't differentiate
between the two since I gave examples of both and explained them
adequately enough for anyone practiced in the art to understand.
---

You would have seen the obvious - a larger joule MOV absorbs even
less energy. A trained engineer would understand this.

---
What you don't seem to understand is that the fact that a physically
larger MOV absorbs less energy for the same current through it than a
smaller one is largely inconsequential and that what really matters is
that the larger MOV can absorb more energy than the smaller one
without being damaged.
---

Instead you post insults.

---
"Well-deserved insults" you should write, for you post little but
slander and hearsay and yet pretend to authority. For shame!
---

Whereas a 100 joule MOV may absorb 100 joules during a 2000 amp
surge; a large 1000 joule MOV would only absorb 75 joules.

---
That's largely immaterial.

Again, what matters is that it can absorb 100 times more energy, so at
75 joules and 2000 amperes it could take that current 133 times longer
than the 100 joule unit.

Get it?
---

Better protectors absorb even less energy - a direct contradiction to what
John Fields has assumed.

---
Even though I keep repeating why they do when you keep asking, over
and over: "Why do they?"
---

Best protectors *divert* even more energy dissipated in earth.
Better protectors have better earthing because
earth (not a protector) provides the protection - absorbs surge
energy.

---
Bullshit.

Given identical wiring and ground conductivity, the only reason a
large MOV gives better protection is because it can take a
longer-lasting transient or more short transients than the smaller
MOV.
---

So where is that plug-in protector numeric spec that lists each type
of surge and protection from that surge?

---
If they're UL listed that'll be given in UL1449.
---

John Fields does not provide what does not exist.

---
SLAP!!!
---

John has foolishly assumed more joules define protection.

---
You claim, then, that more joules _doesn't_ define more protection?
---

Monster Cable loves customers like John.

---
If they do it's because they like being shown up for the frauds they
are.

Kind of like you, what with your keeping coming back to get slapped
around, you insolent little prick.

JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

Why does your telco switching center, that may suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm, not waste money on plug-in protectors?

They don't waste money, because the protection equipment works:
http://www.eaton.com/ecm/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=116282

The link is to the EATON Type 66 Punchdown block-mounted, secondary,
telephone or data-line overvoltage/current surge protection devices.
which would qualify as a plugin surge protector used by the telcos for
the subscriber lines.


--
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 14, 6:05 am, Baron <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote:

Its like an echo !

It's also called electricity. It did not change because some retail
store salesman taught you something different. For 100 years - surge
energy must be dissipated in earth. No earth ground connection is why
plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide that protection. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground - where that surge
energy must be dissipated and where surge currents must go to stay out
of the building.

When damage is not an option, the 'whole house' protector - not plug-
in protectors - are installed AND earthing is upgraded. A superior
solution that also costs less money.

Where does Baron post a technical fact that disputes this? Baron -
attacking the messenger is not science. Spin and insults never created
surge protection. Where does Baron answer the OP's question?

Protection for appliances inside a house of two wire receptacles is
to upgrade the building's earth ground, install one 'whole house'
protector, not upgrade interior wiring, and not waste money on plug-in
protectors. Money wasted on plug-in protectors is better spent on
upgrading a single point earth ground to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC
requirements.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 14, 11:20 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

What you're doing is confusing the MOV's ratings with their resistance
at a particular current.

As I noted earlier, and which you conveniently failed to address, is
that an MOV rated higher in energy absorption capability than another
will have a lower resistance for the same current through it because
of its larger volume of conductive material.

That larger volume is what gives it a higher energy rating in that it
will take more energy to heat it to destruction, which is what this is
all about.

John is now saying what I posted. Are you now admitting what an
MOV's function is? Not to absorb more surge energy. The purpose of
an MOV is to absorb less surge energy AND to divert more surge energy
into earth. Protection is about shunting tens of thousands of joules
into earth through a 100 joule MOV while having that protector
undamaged.

How does a wire - that absorbs energy - conduct more energy
elsewhere? Wire volume increases. How does an MOV provide protection
by conducting more energy elsewhere? MOV volume increases. A wire
has a higher amp rating. An MOV has a higher joule rating. Both work
by shunting (diverting) energy elsewhere. What does the effective
protector do? A low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') connection
diverts surge energy harmlessly in earth. How does a plug-in
protector do that?.

Better MOVs absorb even less energy and divert more energy to where
energy is dissipated. Therefore an MOV must make a low impedance (ie
short) connection to earth. 'Whole house' protectors do that. Plug-
in protectors do not.

What is necessary for an effective protector? MOV must never go
'belly up'. Any MOV that fails catastrophically (trips a failure
indicator light) was grossly undersized and left the appliance to fend
for itself. How many have seen plug-in protectors with a failed
indication - 'belly up'? A problem with plug-in protector that are
grossly undersized (to maximize profits) or that must disconnect MOVs
even faster to avoid this other problem:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
If a thermal fuse does not disconnect MOVs fast, then these scary
pictures are another problem even with UL1449 approved power strip
protectors.

Plug-in protectors provide protection from surges that typically
cause no damage. Effective protection is already inside the
appliance. Internal appliance protection makes those surges
irrelevant. A 'whole house' protector also makes those surges
irrelevant. So what does a plug-in protector do? What it does
protect from is made irrelevant elsewhere. A plug-in protector
cannot protect from what causes damage - no earth ground..

Typically destructive surge seeks earth ground. Protectors for this
type surge must have a low impedance (not low characteristic
impedance) earthing connection. How to identify the ineffective
protector? 1) No dedicated earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all
discussion about earthing. Where is protection from surges that seek
earth ground? Will an MOV magically absorb such surges? Of course
not. MOV are not surge absorbers. MOVs must have what every
responsible citation requires - a low impedance connection to earth.
MOV can only divert surge energy into earth - or accomplish nothing.

John, how do you dispute this? You deny what every responsible
source requires - a low impedance earthing connection. Why do you know
all those citations are wrong? Does the NIST not make it blunt enough
for you?

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.

MOVs do not function by absorbing surges. MOVs divert surge energy
into earth. MOV that shunts wires together simply leaves surge energy
still seeking a destructive path to earth - ie 8000 volts
destructively via an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

Only way that a plug-in protector can make surge energy disappear -
MOV must absorb all joules. But even John now admits MOVs don't do
that. How does a 100 joule protector absorb tens of thousands of
joules? How does that MOV stop what three miles of sky could not?
Responsible sources say an effective MOV must *divert* energy - not
absorb it. How does an MOV without a low impedance earth connection
absorb surge energy or make that surge energy disappear?

John says:

... what you still don't seem to understand is that the rating
of the MOV, in joules, indicates how much energy the
MOV is _allowed_ to absorb before it becomes seriously
damaged.

So a 100 joule MOV 'degraded - not damaged' by a 2000 amp surge can
only dissipate 100 joules. False. If numerous surges are 1 amp, then
the MOV absorbs far more than 100 joules. Joules is a ballpark
measurement for MOV life expectancy; not a measure of how much energy
an MOV can absorb.

MOVs must not be damaged - must never vaporize, burn, or explode.
Must never trigger that failure indicator. MOVs must only degrade.
Damaged MOVs are another problem with grossly undersized power strip
protectors. Because so many plug-in protectors are grossly
undersized, John and others assume that is normal failure. MOVs must
only degrade - not burn.

The numbers from datasheets. That 100 joule protector can conduct a
2000 amp surge only once; absorb 100 joules. It is degraded - not
burned. Same MOV will absorb 100 joules after conducting about 5,000
1 amp surges. So the MOV is degraded? Of course not. Same MOV is
rated to conduct 20,000 1 amp surges. Same100 joule protector can
absorb 400 joules - contradicting what John Fields has posted. As
accurately stated earlier, Joules is only a ballpark measurement of
MOV life expectancy. Joules says nothing about effective protection.

So John, you are now trying to weasel out of your confusion between
wire impedance and characteristic impedance. Provided was an
engineering source that described wire impedance as essential to
effective surge protection. John also denied that citation. John - I
did not post assumptions. I posted well understood engineering
facts. You did not even grasp a simple concept - wire impedance
increases with wire length. Effective MOV protectors need a low
impedance connection to earth - ie 'less than 10 feet'.

John says:

So where is that plug-in protector numeric spec that lists
each type of surge and protection from that surge?

If they're UL listed that'll be given in UL1449.

UL does not care whether a protector provides protection. UL only
cares that a protector does not kill humans or burn down the house. A
joules number says nothing about protection. That joules number does
not even say how many joules actually participate in protection.
That total joules number only says that is how many were inside a
protector when tested.

At protector can completely fail during UL surge testing AND still
be UL1449 approved. UL does not care whether a protector does any
protection. Plug-in protectors with UL1449 approval have no specs
that claim surge protection. John, who previously assumed MOVs work by
absorbing all surges, would assume joules define protection?
Nonsense.

No plug-in protector claims to provide protection. John Fields also
does not post such protection numbers. He cannot. Plug-in
manufacturers do spec what is not provided. Joules number says
nothing about protection. Joules is only a ballpark life expectancy
estimate.

Protection is provided by what absorbs surge energy - earth ground.
No earth ground means no effective protection. Therefore power strip
specs do not list protection from the typically destructive surge.

What is necessary to provide effective protection? Something to
absorb surge energy: earth ground. A low impedance connection from
each incoming wire to the surge absorber - earth ground. How
strange. A plug-in protector that has neither. A surge protector
will absorb or stop what three miles of sky could not? Of course
not. No wonder John cannot provide a manufacture spec for protection
from each type of surge. John had trouble understanding MOV joules
and wire impedance. Well, at least John stopped claiming the MOV
functions by absorbing all surge energy.