"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:6bf6aafc-99ed-47e6-95b3-b98f5a2df8ae@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 1:24 pm, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:
> Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down to
> people
> as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?
>Ask polite or technical questions =snip=
"Boys and girls....claaaasss........be *polite* to our nice, kind
kindergarten teacher.....". LOLOL
"G-squared" <stratus46@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d536181-80ae-4dc4-966a-f6a371ac2201@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 9:24 am, "Tantalust" <Tantal...@paradise.net> wrote:
> "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> > We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors
short
> > (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that
> > protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Simple
stuff
> > that so confused trader. trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read
what
> > was posted. trader again demonstrates insufficient technical
> > kowledge justifies his mockery and insult. Mythical MOV inside
> > appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to
see;
> > not what is posted.
>
> > MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. Had trader read
what
> > was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent
> > fictional MOVs inside appliances.
>
> Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down
to people
> as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?
>
> You read sometimes like one of those old children's "Golden Books".
>Hey, I LIKED reading Golden Books to my kids. They didn't like W-TOMs
>posts at all.
>GG
I loved Golden Books too... I'm 55 going on 90 and I still read mine
everyday! ;-)
In article <74683977-6a03-4695-a5a2- 156ba3653409@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, w_tom1@usa.net
says...
> On May 3, 4:38*am, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
> > through the TV?
>
> Path to earth was through the network and into a third computer.
> Through that third computer's motherboard, through modem, and to earth
> via phone lines. Semiconductors in these paths were damaged.
>
> We literally traced this path by replacing ICs. Some ICs (ie
> network interface chips) even had cracks on packages where surge
> current entered or exiting those ICs. Absolutely no doubt as to how
> surge currents found earth ground, destructively, via adjacent
> computers.
>
I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America
and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
computer power cords are 3 wire?
On May 5, 1:44*am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:| phil-news-nos....@ipal.net wrote:
>
> |> In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet <nos...@noway.com> wrote:|> | <phil-news-nos...@ipal.net> wrote in message
>
> |> |news:fvjhvk016vr@news5.newsguy.com...
> |> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> |> |
> |> |>
> |> |> The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping. *The surge will
> |> |> take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
> |> |> MOVs. *In general, about 50% will go each way. *That can vary at higher
> |> |> frequencies.
> |> |
> |> | Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
> |> | impedance of each direction? *When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
> |> | very low impedance.
> |>
> |> There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
> |> the impedance. *It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
> |> itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
> |> there.
> |
> | Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
> | theory.
>
> Not understanding it is your loss.
I have to agree that this is Phantasy Physics. We're supposed to
believe that a surge reaching a MOV is going to split 50-50, with half
of it going to the MOV path and half moving on down the line,
reagrdless of the impedance of the two paths? That would render all
surge protection about 50% effective.
>
> | Two sources directly contradict Phil.
>
> What sources? *Your truncated out of context quotes?
>
> | Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.
>
> I don't care.
>
> --
> |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from *|
> | * * * * Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
> | * * * * you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. * * * * *|
> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
Ο "Tantalust" <Tantalust@paradise.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:RPidnaZzhcrV0oXVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> "NB" <nobuyout@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b53f2fef-00bd-40d0-9ac1-c69b3bcadf52@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has
>> contained those keywords since 2001???
>
> He an obsessive-compulsive disorder victim, apparently driven by some kind
> of bizarre fetish involving ground rods.
>
>
What kind of ground rods? I prefer steel core, copper clad ones:-) I even
have the special heavy hammer>
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
On May 5, 10:54*am, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America
> and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
> computer power cords are 3 wire?
>
> (snip)
>
> hot neutral ground
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an explanation from w_ about how
surege protection inside that computer can work? Where is that
direct connection to earth ground, without which w_ says surge
protection is impossible? Does the computer have a mythical earth
ground inside? The answer is it doesn't. It is acting under exactly
the same limitations and uses the same components, typically MOVs to
do what a plug-in surge supressor does. w-'s answer to this is to
claim that electronics, appliances, etc do not use MOVs, a claim
previously smashed, because of course they do. Plus it really has
nothing much to do with the question anyway, because the computer,
appliance, etc still HAS NO DIRECT EARTH GROUND, without which w- says
protection is impossible.
In article <fvn72o$rta$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
> >
> I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America
> and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
> computer power cords are 3 wire?
>On May 5, 10:54*am, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>> I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America
>> and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
>> computer power cords are 3 wire?
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> hot neutral ground
>
>
>Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for an explanation from w_ about how
>surege protection inside that computer can work? Where is that
>direct connection to earth ground, without which w_ says surge
>protection is impossible? Does the computer have a mythical earth
>ground inside? The answer is it doesn't. It is acting under exactly
>the same limitations and uses the same components, typically MOVs to
>do what a plug-in surge supressor does. w-'s answer to this is to
>claim that electronics, appliances, etc do not use MOVs, a claim
>previously smashed, because of course they do. Plus it really has
>nothing much to do with the question anyway, because the computer,
>appliance, etc still HAS NO DIRECT EARTH GROUND, without which w- says
>protection is impossible.
I'm curous to know how surge suppression can work without a ground
(earth) of any sort. Does the "black box" detect overvoltage and
disconnect the power like an earth leakage safety switch?
This might be fine for a TV, but surely not for a computer.
I don't recall any computer I've owned that did not have a three wire
connection to the mains. That and a MOV is OK for smallish surges, but
I believe that for a large surge, the sort that will blow a telephone
off the wall, one needs a large, short-path earth for the surge
detector to dump the extra power down.
I've got a few plug in protectors here and there to sop up a small
spike, but when a storm is within a few km, I pull the phone wire out
of the ADSL router, and the plug out of the mains. If I'm working at
the time, I might just keep a watch on the weather radar and count
lightning fashes to thunder times. It's rare that I get interrupted. I
have underground power and phone lines so that gives a little extra
protection, I believe. I've been told that Australian phone lines are
the most vulnerable, and the most urgent to protect or disconnect.
I hope to be going wireless soon which obviates this problem.
Re: Surge / Ground / Lightning 
Linear Mode
