w_tom wrote:
> On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
>
> Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
> can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
> protects from surges that rarely damage appliances.
Complete nonsense.
>
> If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
> created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.
The lie resurrected.
Still missing - a link to any source that says UL listed plug-in
suppressors made after 1998 are a problem.
And undersized is a red herring. UL requires at least a minimal size.
Suppressors with much higher ratings are readily and cheaply available.
>
> Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
> protector, then surge energy somehow disappears.
Poor w__ is unable to understand the IEEE guide. Clearly explained
(starting pdf page 40) - plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or
stopping or absorbing). The guide also explains earthing occurs
elsewhere, not through the plug-in suppressor.
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why do all but one of w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
On May 4, 11:13 am, Tony Hwang <drago...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code
> requirement was dropped.
Technology cannot be challenged? So you attack the messenger? Rush
Limbaugh would be proud. Same mockery also proved Saddam had WMDs.
At what point do you learn from professional citations - ask questions
about the science?
Ham radio operators who actually know enough about electricity to
understand surge protection also define protection in terms of
earthing. How many QST articles did you ignore – therefore not
understand what Phil, et al post? Another ham who learned: Bill
Otten in rec.radio.shortwave on 5 Aug 2005 entitled "grounding and
surge": http://tinyurl.com/79xoa
and http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/
Another station engineer who also says surge damage is avoidable -
but then, unlike Tony Hwang, he did his job; learned from his
experience: http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
> Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
> 30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
> lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
> careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
> WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
> every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
> strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a
> strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines
> knocking *them* out, ...
> Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
> to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
> strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
> damage is *myth*. ...
> The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
> and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
> a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
> And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to
> go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just
> a low ohm DC path.
You claim to be a responsible station engineer. But you had a
lightning strike that created building damage and communication
equipment damage. No decent broadcasting engineer would have
considered that acceptable. Only one who did not even learn from QST
magazine would post foolishly blame Ufer grounds for making damage.
Yes an Ufer ground can result in damage when installed by a layman
who failed to learn the science. Rather than learn, Tony Hwang
declares failure as acceptable. Why are Ufer ground used? Because
Ufer grounding provided protection from direct strikes even to
munitions storage lockers - without damage. How curious. Ufer ground
work great where Tony Hwang is not in charge. Since Tony's facility
was not properly constructed or properly maintained, then Tony
considers damage acceptable. Failure is acceptable.
Educated station managers know lightning damage need not ever cause
damage. When damage does happen, then responsible station managers
find and eliminate the mistake. Tony Hwang knows otherwise; damage is
acceptable - that nothing can protect from lightning. So Tony Hwang
posts mockery and insults - and no technical facts.
How curious. Tony's peers learn from the damage, then eliminated
it.
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
> Bud is focusing on the low frequency energy and
> seems to think that is all there us because a lot of documents focus
> on it because more energy is in the low frequencies. Also, surges
> that come from a greater distance have the higher frequencies reduced.
>
> Bud either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
> not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it.
Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)
Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.
(But this is *Phil* - why should he need sources?)
On May 4, 2:55 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> I don't agree with that assessment of the plug-in protector. If the
> appliance has its own MOVs to protect stuff, then this would be true.
> Not all do. Some appliances are more sensitive than others. It just
> depends on what kind of surge is arriving, and where from. If it is
> differential mode on the power wires, the plug-in protector can do
> some important protection. Even with whole house protection in place,
> you can have some energy get past it, and the surge can be induced into
> the building wiring. Usually the induced surge is common mode, which
> by itself is less of a problem.
In short, your post is saying what my post said. 120 volt
electronics have long had protection up to 600 volts as defined by
industry standards. This was always accomplished without MOVs.
Notice all the dimmer switches replaced weekly due to surge damage?
Not replaced because even those devices contain significant internal
protection - without MOVs.
The differential mode surge (what a plug-in protector can protect
from) typically does no damage as indicated by the large numbers of
appliances - even smoke detectors - that survive these trivial
surges. Survive without MOV protectors because internal protetion is
provided as part of the design - not an add on provided by MOVs.
The typically destructive surge occurs maybe one every seven years.
This is the surge that must be earthing before entering building.
This is the surge that so easily overwhelms protection inside
appliances. This is the surge that makes the properly earthing 'whole
house' protector necessary and so effective.
Yes, it is possible to make other protectors - absorption type.
Industry benchmarks also provide other examples including bulkheads.
Surges running through these bulkheads are further impeded. But each
is supplementary protection. To be effective, typically quite large
or expensive (Surgex, Brickwall, Zerosurge, etc). . How much is one
willing to spend? Effective supplmentary protection is also quite
expensive. Anything less is already found inside an appliance.
Yes, a plug-in protector can provide protection. Does it increase
protection by 80% or 95%. Protection so massive that the homeowner
may never see another surge in his lifetime?. Even a simplest
(properly installed) 'whole house' protector should provide protection
that significant. Without that 'whole hosue' protector, then plug-in
protectors may even contribute to appliance damage. To be effective -
to not contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance, a plug-in
protector needs a properly earthed 'whole house' system. Again, I
have not talked pass Bud. Bud promotes supplemental protection as a
complete solution. Defined by you and I are a surge a plug-in
protector might protect from AND why a plug-in protector can also
contribute to appliance damage.
Yes, your TV antenna examples are also correct - including how
either can be damaged. That being too complicated for most readers
AND irrelevant if both antenna wires are properly installed. Before
antenna wires enter a building, both antenna wires must first make a
short connection to the single point earth ground - meaning protection
standard in TV tuners should not be overwhelmed. Same protection also
installed by the cable company.
Only Bud is limiting himself to one aspect of the issue. You and I
are both discussing the many types of surges including the other that
typically causes most damage. Bud must ignore that typically
destructive surge. Those surges also create Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000
volt earthed destructively through an adjacent TV. Those surges are
why his other citation says:
> The best surge protection in the world can
> be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Those surges that typically do damage AND that plug-in protectors do
not claim to protect from - Bud ignores that entire discussion.
----------------------------
"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:dncTj.112858$rd2.31639@pd7urf3no...
> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> | Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
>> | flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
>> | continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
>>
>> Not true.
>>
>> When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that
>> go
>> out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
>> complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find
>> out.
>> It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
>> that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open
>> condition,
>> a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
>>
>> You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
>> you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission
>> line.
>> The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
>> circuit".
>>
> Hmmm,
> You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and voltage(poential)
> Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we have to rewrite Ohm's law.
> Show your credential to make a stamement like that.
> Shameful.
------------------------
Actually, you are showing some confusion. Phil is right in that he is
bringing out a point that normal lumped RLC circuit theory doesn't handle
because it essentially treats the speed of propagation of electrical signals
as if it were infinite- which isn't true.
1)Current (not current flow which is meaningless) is NOT energy.
Current*voltage*time IS energy-
..
2)Also, on energizing a line whether it is open or closed, there is a
current flow as the applied voltage "sees" the characteristic impedance of
the line (wire or whatever) so a current will flow-even on an open circuit-
until there is a modifying reflection from the termination. For a house the
distances are such that this may be of the order of 0.1-0.2 microsecond.
After all such reflections at terminations have ceased or are negligable,
conventional circuit theory is applicable.
In these situations, you are dealing with wave propagation rather than
conventional circuit theory.
This is the regime that is of interest in considering "surge protectors"
As to the advantage of "whole house" vs local surge protection, "whole house
protection depends on distances to all "protected" items being small. Local
protection doesn't but is simply that- local. The effectiveness of either
depends considerably on grounding and other factors.
The spate of name calling doesn't do anything of use to anybody.
--
On May 4, 9:57*pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
> they are not as smart as Phil.)
>
> Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.
Every Bud citations contradicts Bud's claims. So Bud must do what
those without knowledge do - post insults.
Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.
Good. Bud can post those manufacture spec numbers that list each type
of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. 400 requests and Bud
still cannot provide any specs? So Bud must post insults.
How to identify the liar - who does exactly what Rush Limbaugh
does? He posts no facts (no manufacturer spec numbers) and his posts
are only insults. Bud posts only insults. That says Bud lies (and
that he has not technical facts). But then profits are at risk. That
justifies anything.
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet <nospam@noway.com> wrote:
> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:fvjhvk016vr@news5.newsguy.com...
> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> |
> |>
> |> The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping. The surge will
> |> take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
> |> MOVs. In general, about 50% will go each way. That can vary at higher
> |> frequencies.
> |
> | Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
> | impedance of each direction? When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
> | very low impedance.
>
> There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
> the impedance. It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
> itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
> there.
Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
theory.
Two sources directly contradict Phil.
Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.
On May 3, 4:16 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> ...
> And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
> by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
> apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
> with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.
> ...
> Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
> papers on surges and suppression.
Both of Bud's citations - guides for laymen - describe how a plug-in
protector can work AND how such devices can even create appliance
damage. Both state what an effective protector needs - short
connection to earth ground. Both state why a protector without
earthing can even contribute to appliance damage.
Even Martzloff is quite blunt about this. Bud quotes from Martzloff
selectively. Meanwhile this conclusion is so fundamental that
Martzloff makes it the first point in his IEEE paper:
> Conclusion:
> 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
> show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
> even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
> present at the point of connection of appliances.
A plug-in (point of connection) protector can contribute to
appliance damage. Every Bud citation says that. Even Martzloff says
that. Why do professionals routinely install 'whole house' type
protectors instead of plug-in protectors? "Objectionable difference
in … voltages ... [when] protective devices are ... at the point of
connection". Industry professionals note this problem with plug-in
protectors. Also are those 'scary pictures of plug-in protectors
located where fire hazards are greater. Bud conveniently ignores all
that. Profits are at risk.
On May 4, 9:14 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Bull****. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
> grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
> are blowing smoke.
People who are more than TV repairmen learn from their mistakes and
correct reasons for that failure. TV repairmen only fix defects -
never bother to learn how those failures can be avoided. Let's have
some fun. Let's reply using the same mockery and insult that Michael
uses. Except this post will be accurate about Michaels intelligence.
Others who bother to learn discover what happens when a radio
station repeatedly gets knocked off the air. Eventually that station
engineer may hire someone who knows more than a TV repairman. What
was the solution to so much radio station damage? They fixed mistakes
made by a naive station engineer. They installed and upgreaded
earthing. No more lightning damage.
Michael will deny reality because Michael knows without first
learning facts. Others can learn what Michael Terrell denies.
Lightning need not cause damage when one thinks, instead, like an
engineer. Michael Terrell who learned to think like and engineer -
not like the technician - would know this. Radio station repeatedly
damaged. Then they finally admited that failure is not acceptable: http://www.copper.org/applications/e.../nebraska.html
> Based on a belief that "too much" grounding was attracting
> lightning strikes, grounding connections on the tower's six
> sets of guy wires had been disconnected sometime in the
> past (Figure 4). This action may, in fact, have helped direct
> lightning discharge current down the antenna tower itself,
> bringing the strike closer to the studio/transmitter building.
Why did the station engineer make damage easier? He could not
bother to learn about stuff even published in QST magazine - the ham
radio operator's magazine.
Why does Michael Terrell deny this? He is a technician - a TV
repairman. His posts attack the messenger rather than address
technology. Michael Terrell is correct. Some stations are knocked
off the air by lightning. Those with informed station engineers
correct the defect - learn from their mistakes and eliminate future
failures. Michael Terrell's attitude declares failure as acceptable.
But then Michael Terrell could not think like an engineer which is why
he also could never be promoted above enlistedman.
On May 4, 9:24*am, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:
> "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> > * We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors
short
> > (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that
> > protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. *Simple
stuff
> > that so confused trader. *trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read
what
> > was posted. * trader again demonstrates insufficient technical
> > kowledge justifies his mockery and insult. * Mythical MOV inside
> > appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to
see;
> > not what is posted.
>
> > *MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. *Had trader read
what
> > was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent
> > fictional MOVs inside appliances.
>
> Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down
to people
> as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?
>
> You read sometimes like one of those old children's "Golden Books".
Hey, I LIKED reading Golden Books to my kids. They didn't like W-TOMs
posts at all.
Re: Surge / Ground / Lightning 
Linear Mode
