On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:21:16 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
<noone@nospam.void> wrote:
>
>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>
I'm on 2000' of sand, and at the moment, my house earth is the copper
water pipes, but the water corp keep adding plastic bits here and
there, so I don't really trust it. I was going to hammer in a 20'
length of 3/4" copper pipe under a large tree which gets the drain
from my grey water. Probably the best I can do.
I'm not a full bottle on earth loops yet so i don't know about leaving
the water mains connection still connected.
What's the best way to test an earth?
I heard once that a large electric radiator (fire) connected between
active (hot) and the earth will glow as per normal if the earth has
good capacity. Perhaps a current comparison between the earth return
and neutral return would be more informative?
On Mon, 5 May 2008 09:24:41 -0400, "Tantalust"
<Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
>"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote
>
>>Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions.
>
>Look at poor w_tom starting his back-pedalling.
>Back-pedalling, back-pedalling, back-pedalling.
>
As I understand it, there is not "protection", or "no protection"
That is, it is not black and white, but degrees of protection, as
there are degrees of surge, or spike.
There is absolute protection of whole of house costing many thousands
of dollars, with tinfoil hats thrown in at no extra cost
And there is $7 protection against weeny little spikes/surges, and
then there is everything in between at varying prices.
The old saw "you get what you pay for" is generally bull**** IMHO
You get what the bastard will let you get away with IME
In article <MPG.2288b7113e6f82e7989695@news.bcsupernet.com> , Jitt
<tser827@yahoo.com> writes
> I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America
>and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
>computer power cords are 3 wire?
Many older domestic installations in N America are two-wire only (no
ground.)
In the UK and much of Europe, all outlets are grounded, so surge
protectors do work effectively. w_tom has been informed of this fact
many times but continues telling blatant lies, spreading FUD, and
misrepresenting what others write.
<spamfree@spam.heaven> wrote in message
news:4egu14daq01hro0aj8c8ugpv3emu5a3h6g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 09:24:41 -0400, "Tantalust"
> <Tantalust@paradise.net> wrote:
>
>>"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote
>>
>>>Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions.
>>
>>Look at poor w_tom starting his back-pedalling.
>>Back-pedalling, back-pedalling, back-pedalling.
>>
>
> As I understand it, there is not "protection", or "no protection"
> That is, it is not black and white, but degrees of protection, as
> there are degrees of surge, or spike.
>
> There is absolute protection of whole of house costing many thousands
> of dollars, with tinfoil hats thrown in at no extra cost
> And there is $7 protection against weeny little spikes/surges, and
> then there is everything in between at varying prices.
>
> The old saw "you get what you pay for" is generally bull**** IMHO
> You get what the bastard will let you get away with IME
>
> jack
Yeah, but search google groups with the terms "plug in protectors".....
returning 33 instances clearly showing that wobbly_tom was bewildered on the
issue and he's back-pedalling now, as we expected.
"Michael A. Terrell" advised:
> Use a combination of protection at the building's main disconnect,
> and individual protection at each critical device.
Does that mean a combination of w_tom's "whole house protection"
and individual "surge protectors" at those "critical devices"? That's
what I've always felt would be prudent - not a single method of
protection, but a combination.
In article <2seu14tkjc068ph626ahu4akieb1pqa38f@4ax.com>, spamfree@spam.heaven writes
>I'm curous to know how surge suppression can work without a ground
>(earth) of any sort.
Surge suppressors usually have three MOVs: one between phase and
neutral, and one each from phase and neutral to earth.
On properly grounded outlets, such a suppressor can deal with an
incoming surge on phase or neutral in an effective manner by conducting
and diverting current to the other leg AND to ground, but their
effectiveness when used on ungrounded outlets is reduced, since the path
to ground doesn't exist.
w_**** chooses to conveniently ignore this fact and continues to peddle
his unique brand of lies, misrepresentation and FUD in his own
inimitable style, which another poster has described as "hostile".
It's telling that w_ was unable to understand that people perceive his
posting style as hectoring or hostile, which should give you some idea
of his mental state
In alt.engineering.electrical trader4@optonline.net wrote:
| 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.
You did not read very carefully. The reference to 50-50 split is about the
contribution of the MOVs themselves. That is an essential understanding of
the components so the whole system can be figured out. The impedance down
the paths is another separate component, which also has to be figured in
when determining the whole picture.
You have confused a component with the entire system. You need to read more
carefully. Or you need to understand the distinction of individual components
as they apply to the whole system
The whole wiring system is extrememly complex. It cannot be understood
properly without first understanding the components. And that includes
understanding that MOVs, when they conduct, do look to the propogating
energy as two paths to go down, and it will (initially) go both ways in
about an equal amount.
--
|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) |
"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:82da8b44-e386-4911-94c0-99b0671599ee@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
I am merely a TV repairman who happens to have quite a bit of education, and
has done much research on the matter. We began installing good basic MOV
based suppression on our clients' systems long ago, using system level units
that protect all incoming lines. We also pay close attention to proper
grounding. What we have found over many years of this practice in one of
the most lightning intense areas of the USA, is that our systems never take
damage. During times of high thunderstorm activity, however, we see several
times the repair volume, and invariably, the user did not use a surge
suppressor. Our clients are happy with the systems that we sell and with
the reliability. There are good reasons to suspect that system level surge
suppressors do work, but grounding cannot be ignored.
As for you w_tom, you have done far more to clutter groups than to provide
any useful information. While your emphasis on grounding is good advice,
much of the rest of your arguments are out of context and misleading.
Michael may be a crochety *** sometimes, but at least he consistently
provides useful information. Stick to preaching the importance of grounding
and give the rest a break.
In article <481f4eb2$0$31762$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Timothy Daniels
<SpamBucket@NoSpamPlease.biz> writes
> Does that mean a combination of w_tom's "whole house protection"
>and individual "surge protectors" at those "critical devices"? That's
>what I've always felt would be prudent - not a single method of
>protection, but a combination.
Yes, but the environment in which the protected dwelling is situated
should also be taken into account. For example, a house in Florida,
with its overhead power lines and frequent thunderstorms, would be a
more likely candidate for a combined approach to surge protection.
On the other hand, installing Florida-levels of protection in a house in
the UK with its infrequent storms, reliable underground power supply and
a decent electrical system with properly earthed sockets, would be a
waste of money.
It is those nuances that w_**** fails to explain when he spouts his one-
cure-for-all-ills religious mantra about every dwelling absolutely
requiring whole-house surge protection. Like another poster to this
thread has said, things are never black and white, but shades of grey.
The sensible approach is to evaluate the risk and install an appropriate
level of protection.
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>
> |> |> For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
> |> |> less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
> |> |> of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
> |> |> within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
> |> |> but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
> |> |> frequency energy issues entirely.
> |> |
> |> | Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
> |> | papers on surges and suppression. In one of them he wrote:
> |> | "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
> |> | often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
> |> | systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
> |> | concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
> |> | the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
> |> | the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
> |> | classical transmission line behavior."
> |> | Residential branch circuits aren't 200m.
> |> |
> |> | Your response: "Then he flubbed the experiment." In another case you
> |> | have said Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
> |>
> |> I addressed this one elsewhere. You seem to have misunderstood him.
> |> He did not say that wiring systems do not exhibit transmission line
> |> characteristics.
> |
> | If you had actually read the quote:
> | "*it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line concepts to
> | wiring systems*"
> | and "*this means that the line must be at least 200 m long before one
> | can think in terms of classical transmission line behavior*."
> |
> | Repeating: "Residential branch circuits aren't 200m."
>
> You are now taking what Martzloff said out of context. He _qualified_
> what he said in terms of a statement conditional. Following the part
> you just now quoted is "... if the front of the wave is not shorter than
> the travel time of the impulse." Then he added "For a 1.2/50 us impulse,
> this means that the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think
> in terms of classical transmission line behavior."
>
> Hint: what "if" means is that if the conditional is not met, then the
> statement does not apply.
>
> Martzloff's statement is actually correct. Your quoting of it is wrong.
> I suspect your understanding of it is weak or maybe even wrong. I believe
> you are misapplying it. Then when _my_ statement contradicts _your_
> incorrect understanding, you somehow think *I* am contradicting him.
>
> His statement is qualified for a specific slow impulse rise time that
> corresponds to a lower frequency. He has NOT said (in what you quoted
> in earlier posts here) that no surge can ever have a faster rise time.
> He has NOT said that you cannot think in terms of transmission line
> behaviour for faster rise times, even on shorter wiring/circuits.
Previously you said Martzloff "flubbed the experiment".
Now you agree with Martzloff that branch circuit must be 200m for
transmission line behavior with 1.2 microsecond rise time.
You say that doesn't apply because surges are faster. Martzloff uses 1.2
us because that is a standard rise time for surges produced by lightning
as defined in IEEE standards.
w_' professional engineer source says 8 micoseconds with most of the
spectrum under 100kHz.
You still have *no sources that support your belief* that risetimes are
far faster.
>
> |> | You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
> |> | times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
> |> | derived.
> |>
> |> So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?
> |
> | I intended "induced" meaning produced by including the most damaging -
> | strikes to utility lines.
>
> The most damaging strikes tend to be ones that are NOT induced. Do you
> understand what induction and inductive coupling is?
>
> Lightning does not have to directly strike the wire for there to be a
> surge on it. That is induction when there is no direct strike. If the
> strike _is_ directly on the wires, that's different (and has the exposure
> of substantially more voltage/current).
Again you did not read what I wrote (what a surprise):
"I intended 'induced' meaning produced by including the most damaging -
strikes to utility lines."
Re: Surge / Ground / Lightning 
Linear Mode
