Bud-- wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>
.... big snip ...
>
>> 'Whole house' protector can be purchases even in Lowes and Home
>> Depot - some for less than $50.
>
> w_ has never provided a link to a $50 suppressor. Or provided the
> specs for one.
He seems to go off when anyone mentions 'protection' in any form.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
Some modems have built-in surge protection e.g. my old 28.8 Zoom modem which has outlived several 56K modems. I still use the Zoom for fax since my last 56K modem died.
CBFalconer wrote:
>
> Vester wrote:
> >
> > although my ISP says don't use a surge protector on the aDSL line.
> > The phone line from the wall jack to the modem is about six inches.
> > I have underground utilities which help. I've only lost one modem
> > in six years here in South Carolina, USA.
>
> I've been using the same modem for at least 8 years, sometimes
> protected, sometimes not. Never had a problem. US-Robotics.
CBFalconer wrote:
> Bud-- wrote:
>> w_tom wrote:
>>
> ... big snip ...
>>> 'Whole house' protector can be purchases even in Lowes and Home
>>> Depot - some for less than $50.
>> w_ has never provided a link to a $50 suppressor. Or provided the
>> specs for one.
>
> He seems to go off when anyone mentions 'protection' in any form.
>
I believe he uses google-groups to search for "surge" and maybe
"lightning". Also "power supply" with a different spiel.
Bud-- wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Bud-- wrote:
>>> w_tom wrote:
>>>
>> ... big snip ...
>>>> 'Whole house' protector can be purchases even in Lowes and Home
>>>> Depot - some for less than $50.
>>> w_ has never provided a link to a $50 suppressor. Or provided the
>>> specs for one.
>>
>> He seems to go off when anyone mentions 'protection' in any form.
>>
>
> I believe he uses google-groups to search for "surge" and maybe
> "lightning". Also "power supply" with a different spiel.
>
> --
> bud--
You can use Google Alerts, to have an email sent to you, every
time a certain word or phrase is used:
On Jun 7, 3:18 am, Bud-- <remove.BudN...@isp.com> wrote:
> The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
> - the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
> lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
> power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the
> IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers
> in the US).
> And also:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
> - this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
> protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency formerly
> called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001
When outright and intentional lies and myths are posted, nobody
cares who attacks the liar. Bud is the worst example. Let's take his
own citations as example. Bud intentionally misrepresents IEEE and
NIST. He cut and pastes this same response everywhere. He knows
exactly what my response will be and he never has been able to deny
reality.
Reality is that IEEE Standards are where recommendations are made.
And IEEE Standards are blunt about it. Earthing is the protection -
not a protector. For example IEEE Red Book (Standard 141) says"
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
> process of interception of lightning produced surges,
> diverting them to ground, and by altering their
> associated wave shapes.
Other IEEE Standards repeat this - earthing is the protection. Bud
claims no protector need earthing. He claims his cited guides do not
disagree with IEEE Standards. They don't. Page 42 Figure 8 in his
first standard contradicts Bud. A plug-in protector has shunted (also
called clamping, connecting, bonding, diverting) a surge to earth
ground. Problem is the protector was too far away from building earth
ground - the protection. So it shunted that surge 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV. Bud hopes you will not look
at Page 42 Figure 8. He will post spin to confuse the issue. But
Page 42 Figure 8 in his IEEE guide agrees exactly with IEEE
Standards. Protection is by earthing - not by a protector. And when
the protector has no earthing electrode to connect to, then it may
earthing that surge 8000 volts destructively via the TV.
Why does the telco install a 'whole house' protector where telephone
line enters your building? Because it can is properly earthed - will
then provide protection for telephone line appliances. Do what IEEE
Standards demand. Not cause damage as in Page 42 Figure 8.
But also hopes you never review his other citation Page 8 of 24
(paper page 6):
> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm. So
> a name that makes sense would be "surge diverter"
> but it was not picked. So, for the rest of this
> booklet, we will stick to the most popular "surge
> protector".
How can this be? Bud who avidly promotes for plug-in protector
manufactures would not lie? Well last time his citations were uses
against him, then his replies were insults such as
> And more drivel.
Then follows that post with no technical facts or repeats his
intentional misrepresentation of his only two citations.
Bud's citation Page 8 of 24 (paper page 6) even says a protector
must
> ... simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm."
No earth ground means no effective protection. The protectors that
have no earthing - Bud promotes them. Others have simply used word
association to know plug-in protectors must work: surge protector
sound likes surge protection. Therefore it must be true.
But again, Bud's own citation demonstrates a protector too close to
appliance and too far from earth ground put 8000 volts destructively
through the TV.
'Whole house' protectors are earthed. Therefore facilities from the
US Air Force to commercial broadcasters, 911 emergency response
centers, and even hospitals install single point earthing AND use
'whole house' protectors.
Those who did not like being exposed in error may even post attacks
on this poster rather than cite science.
Cites is a 'whole house' protector already on phone line. Why did
those advocating grossly overpriced and ineffective plug-in protectors
not even know of that telco provided protector exist? How can they
recommend a protector that does not even cite each type of surge and
numbers for that protection? How can they recommend protection when
they don't even know how it was installed standard even long before
WWII?
Meanwhile Bud's knowledge apparently comes from the Internet. He
could not even get off his *** to visit any Lowes or Home Depot where
'whole house' protectors are sold - some for less that $50. Actually
he may have. But Bud's purpose is to pervert reality - promote
ineffective and so grossly profitable plug-in protectors that don't
even claim to protect from the typically destructive type of surge.
Obviously. No dedicated earthing connection. Even Bud's own citations
Page 42 Figure 8 and Page 8 of 24 contradict him.
Bud usual reply is to ignore how those citations say earthing is
necessary for protection. Bud cannot refute that because even IEEE
Standards demand earthing for protection. But then an engineer with a
few decades of experience learned this long ago. Real world design
experience; not denials based in promoting plug-in protectors from
internet knowledge.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Even IEEE
Standards and Bud's own citations demonstrated that reality.
w_tom wrote:
> On Jun 7, 3:18 am, Bud-- <remove.BudN...@isp.com> wrote:
>> The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
>> http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
>> - the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
>> lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
>> power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the
>> IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers
>> in the US).
>> And also:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
>> - this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
>> protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
>> Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency formerly
>> called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001
>
> When outright and intentional lies and myths are posted, nobody
> cares who attacks the liar. Bud is the worst example.
Perhaps w_ could learn English.
Follow the discussion and see who is lying.
I encourage people to read the sources - the IEEE and NIST guides.
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing. The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs
elsewhere. (Read the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40).
>
> Reality is that IEEE Standards are where recommendations are made.
> And IEEE Standards are blunt about it. Earthing is the protection -
> not a protector. For example IEEE Red Book (Standard 141) says"...
w_ has to discredit anything that challenges his religious belief in
earthing.
But you have to be really stupid to say the recommendations of the IEEE
are not in the IEEE guide considering the IEEE guide (pdf page 4) says
the guide was peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE.
And the "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive
Electronic Equipment" (the Emerald book), an IEEE standard, recognizes
plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most
appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics
> Bud
> claims no protector need earthing.
w_ is fond of making up what others claim. I repeat what the IEEE guide
says - plug-in suppressors work by clamping not earthing. The guide says
earthing occurs elsewhere.
> Page 42 Figure 8 in his
> first standard contradicts Bud. A plug-in protector has shunted (also
> called clamping, connecting, bonding, diverting) a surge to earth
> ground. Problem is the protector was too far away from building earth
> ground - the protection. So it shunted that surge 8000 volts
> destructively through the adjacent TV.
Lacking technical arguments w_ has to lie about sources that contradict
his dogma.
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop.
There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor
protects the TV connected to it. It reduces the voltage at a distant TV
from 10,000V to 8,000V. It does *not* contribute to damage of the second
TV, which is distant, not adjacent. The point of the illustration is "to
protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required".
This lie is repeated numerous times is w_’s rant.
> Bud hopes you will not look
> at Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud hopes you will read the IEEE guide. Start at pdf page 40.
>
> But also hopes you never review his other citation Page 8 of 24
> (paper page 6):...
What does the NIST guide actually say about plug–in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
>
> How can this be? Bud who avidly promotes for plug-in protector
> manufactures would not lie?
w_ has to discredit anyone who challenges his dogma.
I can only agree with w_ when he said "It is an old political trick.
When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."
My only association with surge protectors is I have some.
>
> No earth ground means no effective protection. The protectors that
> have no earthing - Bud promotes them.
The statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing.
The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work.
And I don’t promote them. I only promote accurate information. I say
they are effective, not that I recommended them.
> Others have simply used word
> association to know plug-in protectors must work: surge protector
> sound likes surge protection. Therefore it must be true.
Geez - and those idiots at the IEEE and NIST fell for it.
>
> Those who did not like being exposed in error may even post attacks
> on this poster rather than cite science.
w_ doesn’t like being exposed in error (as is evident) and posts attacks
on this poster rather that cite science. I cite science - links to 2
reputable sources that say plug-in suppressors are effective. Try to
find a source from w_ that says anything about plug-in suppressors.
>
> Meanwhile Bud's knowledge apparently comes from the Internet. He
> could not even get off his *** to visit any Lowes or Home Depot where
> 'whole house' protectors are sold - some for less that $50.
w_ requires others to post specifics. But he is immune. There is no
reason to believe the mythical $50 suppressor exists.
>
> Bud usual reply is to ignore how those citations say earthing is
> necessary for protection.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. But the only question is whether
plug–in suppressors work.
>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
And the final statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide
explains plug-in suppressors work by clamping, not earthing.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Read them for yourself.
Never seen - a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. Where is a link w__? Could it be that no one agrees with you?
And never seen - an explanation why the only 2 examples of protection in
the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors.
Or why the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Or why Emerald book includes plug-in suppressors as an effective surge
protection device.
All you get is a hysterical rant with w_'s opinions based on his
religious belief in earthing.
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Misattributes views.
Distorts and tries to discredit opposing sources.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 03:05:13 -0500, Bud--
<remove.BudNews@isp.com> wrote:
>w_ is fond of making up what others claim. I repeat what the IEEE guide
>says - plug-in suppressors work by clamping not earthing. The guide says
>earthing occurs elsewhere.
No, it says they can be effective. It's like saying a steak
knife can be effective at driving off a burglar, but don't
be surprised if you happen upon a burglar that sees it and
laughs at you instead.
kony wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 03:05:13 -0500, Bud--
> <remove.BudNews@isp.com> wrote:
>
>
>> w_ is fond of making up what others claim. I repeat what the IEEE guide
>> says - plug-in suppressors work by clamping not earthing. The guide says
>> earthing occurs elsewhere.
>
>
> No, it says they can be effective. It's like saying a steak
> knife can be effective at driving off a burglar, but don't
> be surprised if you happen upon a burglar that sees it and
> laughs at you instead.
Everything I have read is that suppressors with high ratings will
protect against lightning induced surges short of a near direct strike.
The surge current to a plug–in suppressor is greatly limited by the
impedance of the supply wiring. It is easy to get plug-in suppressors
with high surge current ratings - so they will survive a few very
strong surges. It is also easy to get high Joule ratings - so they will
survive a large number of strong surges. That is why some manufacturers
can offer connected equipment warranties. Everything I have read
indicates suppressors with very high ratings, readily available, would
protect against anything but a lightning strike on a service drop to a
house (and are likely to even withstand that). Few people would expect
protection for a lightning strike to the house itself.
I said: “Suppressor ratings range from junk to very high.”
And “With high ratings a suppressor is likely to protect from anything
but a very near hit. High ratings are why manufacturers can have
connected equipment warranties on some suppressors.”
And that all signal and power wires have to go through the suppressor.
Seems to me that is adequate qualification.
You seem to think plug–in suppressors are not particularly useful. That
is certainly not what the IEEE and NIST guides say. You also insist
“effective” means 100%. By that definition steel frame buildings are not
”effective”, as has been recently seen. Nor are fuses, circuit breakers
or locks. I’m not sure anything is “effective”.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:31:41 -0500, Bud--
<remove.BudNews@isp.com> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 03:05:13 -0500, Bud--
>> <remove.BudNews@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> w_ is fond of making up what others claim. I repeat what the IEEE guide
>>> says - plug-in suppressors work by clamping not earthing. The guide says
>>> earthing occurs elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> No, it says they can be effective. It's like saying a steak
>> knife can be effective at driving off a burglar, but don't
>> be surprised if you happen upon a burglar that sees it and
>> laughs at you instead.
>
>
>Everything I have read is that suppressors with high ratings will
>protect against lightning induced surges short of a near direct strike.
>The surge current to a plug–in suppressor is greatly limited by the
>impedance of the supply wiring.
So is the return path to ground. Remember that when there
is this higher impedance to ground, a larger % of the surge
ends up going through the equipment. Always "some" of the
surge does but with this raised impedance the % is more
significant.
You can get a full house surge suppressor installed by an electrician to
protect against surges, but nothing will protect against a direct or close
lightning strike, i was told.
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21
BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Lightning protection 
Linear Mode
