phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>
> |> | w_' professional engineer source says 8 micoseconds with most of the
> |> | spectrum under 100kHz.
> |>
> |> Even with 1 nanosecond rise time, most of the energy will be present in
> |> the spectrum below 100 kHz. That means nothing when the surge is strong
> |> enough to have energy above some frequency that is relevant to the whole
> |> system involved that can do damage. That frequency might be 100 Mhz for
> |> some thing, and 1 GHz for other things.
> |
> | Still missing - your source. Nanosecond risetime. 100MHz spectrum.
>
> Observation. Of course this is a concept you cannot understand.
Observation proves flying saucers and magic.
Without supporting sources it is Phil's Phantasy Physics.
Where is a source that supports your belief in nanosecond risetimes and
100MHz spectrum?
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> | Now - is this all germane to household protection? You say not and I agree
> | with you- because household equipment can ride through - at worst- doubling
> | of the clamped voltage for a very short time even though the clamped voltage
> | is relatively small compared to the peak of the incoming surge. --
>
> My belief is that they
> can, and will at times.
People believe in flying saucers.
Where is a source that supports your belief?
>
> I do agree that things can survive at the clamping voltage. But there has to
> be a clamping situation. It's too easy for a surge to come in as a common
> mode surge where the voltage difference across the MOVs would be (nearly) zero.
> Then all we have is a propogating wavefront. And if it is strong and/or close
> then we have very fast rise times. And it passes by the MOVs "laterally".
Where is a source that supports your belief in nanosecond risetimes and
100MHz spectrum?
> But one thing I do see in at least part of this thread is that Bud
> focuses on quoting things other people say, and does very little to express
> things in his own words.
I focus on the real world. You focus on your beliefs.
Where is a source that supports your belief in nanosecond risetimes and
100MHz spectrum?
w_tom wrote:
> On May 5, 2:35 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> The IEEE guide is aimed at "electricians, architects, technicians, and
>> electrical engineers who were not protection specialists."
>
> Industry standard facts and
> embarrassing questions.that Bud will ignore to lie and to promote plug-
> in protector sales
Lacking any valid technical arguments poor w_ has to try to discredit
opponents. My only association with surge protectors is I have some.
>
> 1) How does that plug-in protector provide protection without the
> 'always necessary' earth ground? What does a protector do? Bud
> provides only two citations. Both disagree with his claims. The NIST
> bluntly defines what a protector must do - Page 6:
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
>
> 2) Bud not only denies this also so important single point earth
> ground.
If w_ could only read he would have seen my emphasis on a *short*
'ground' wire from phone/cable entry protectors to the 'ground' at the
power service. w_ appears to want all wires run to the grounding
electrode. That does not provide the minimum voltage between power and
signal wires. Martzloff has written "the impedance of the grounding
system to 'true earth' is far less important than the integrity of the
bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."
And the case where phone/cable entry points are too far distant from
power service, IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting
the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
> He also ignores what happens when a protector is too far from
> earth and too close to appliances. Page 42 Figure 8: the surge
> earthed 8000 volts destructively through appliances. This is the
> second point from his citations that Bud must ignore.
The illustration has 2 TVs. The IEEE says the point of the illustration
is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is
required." Way to complicated for w_.
>
> 3) So if a plug-in protector is effective protection, then
> manufacturer specs will list each type of surge and protection from
> that surge. Bud never provides that spec either.
"Each type of surge" is nonsense. w_'s favored SquareD service panel
suppressors do not have specs for "each type of surge". Lacking valid
technical arguments has to invent problems.
> Plug-in
> protectors don't claim to protect from the type of surge that
> typically causes damage.
Complete nonsense.
> Not one plug-in protector manufacturer will
> claim that protection - made obvious because Bud will not post those
> specs and ignored over 400 requests for those specs.
Over 400 requests - another hallucination.
Specs posted often and ignored.
>
> 4) No earth ground means no effective protection. A protector is
> only as effective as its earth ground.
w_'s religious belief (immune from challenge) in earthing has been the
elephant in the closet. w_ believes a surge protector must directly
earth a surge. 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.
The voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe
for the protected equipment. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily
by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide also explains earthing
does occur, just not primarily through the plug-in suppressor. (Read the
guide starting pdf page 40).
For accurate information on surges read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both
say plug-in suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.
Embarrassing questions that w_ will ignore:
- 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)?
w_tom wrote:
> On May 5, 2:27 pm, Mike Tomlinson <m...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Mike Tomlinson has just posted in agreement. UK homes typically do
> not need what is necessary in FL homes. UK homes need not be earthed
> as central FL homes may be earthed:
> http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
>
> Many homes have more than enough protection with only one earthed
> 'whole house' protector - and nothing else. Especially in the UK.
> That means spending tens (or maybe one hundred) times less money for
> protection of everything.
>
> UK homes may be more than sufficiently earthed with one 3 meter
> ground rod. Then one surge protector can provide more than sufficient
> protection for everything - eliminating maybe £500 or £2000 for plug-
> in protectors.
Last I heard UK phone entry protectors did not clamp the voltage to
earth. That allows high voltage between power and phone wires. w_’s
favored service panel suppressor provides no protection from this hazard.
Don Kelly wrote:
> ----------------------------
> "bud--" <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:e234c$481f53e8$4213eabe$21042@DIALUPUSA.NET.. .
>> Don Kelly wrote:
>>> ----------------------------
>>> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:dncTj.112858$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.
>>> .
>>> 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"
>> The last standards for simulating typical surge waveforms I have seen
>> (IEEE) were
>> 1.2 us rise time, 50 us duration
>> 8 us rise time, 20 us duration
>> a ring wave with a frequency about 100kHz.
>>
>> All are long relative to 0.2 microsecond, so wave propagation should not
>> be relevant for household circuits.
> ----------------------------------------
> Your point is true- the time interval is so small that for practical
> purposes it can be ignored. I am not denying that. Obviously I gave that
> impression- sorry for that.
>
> I was simply pointing out that phil had it right in theory and Tony had it
> wrong.
>
> After this time for the wave to travel to the end and be reflected (and
> other re-reflections die out) then conventional circuit theory is
> applicable. The fact that the time is extremely small simply means that we
> can pretend that it doesn't even exist.
>
> While Matzloff is right in the time for a round trip is of the order of
> 200m, it is also dangerous to assume that one can ignore waves for shorter
> distances. For example, a stroke to a tower of an EHV line (a lot less than
> 200m) will go down the tower, meet ground resistance and be reflected.
> Such reflections have been found to be more likely to cause flashover than
> direct strokes to the line (EPRI). Similarly, the practice in substations
> is not "whole station" protection (where this is applicable, it must be done
> considering a number of factors- quite interesting ) and putting specific
> protection as near as possible to the protected apparatus-definitely within,
> say, 10m. - It's not just the time to peak that is the critical factor. Do a
> lattice diagram approach or use Bergeron's method (Hermann Dommel did a lot
> of work with this at EPRI and has a lot of papers in IEEE- more dealing with
> switching surges than lightning).
> It's been a long time since I did any calculations in this area so I would
> have to brush up.
I am real glad the probability of a direct house strike is low. I have
some appreciation for the earthing/bonding required in a substation
(also referred to by nobody).
>
> Now - is this all germane to household protection? You say not and I agree
> with you- because household equipment can ride through - at worst- doubling
> of the clamped voltage for a very short time even though the clamped voltage
> is relatively small compared to the peak of the incoming surge. --
The effect Martzloff was specifically looking for in experiments was
doubling of voltage.
As an aside, several of the experiments done by Martzloff were at EPRI.
In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>
|> |> | w_' professional engineer source says 8 micoseconds with most of the
|> |> | spectrum under 100kHz.
|> |>
|> |> Even with 1 nanosecond rise time, most of the energy will be present in
|> |> the spectrum below 100 kHz. That means nothing when the surge is strong
|> |> enough to have energy above some frequency that is relevant to the whole
|> |> system involved that can do damage. That frequency might be 100 Mhz for
|> |> some thing, and 1 GHz for other things.
|> |
|> | Still missing - your source. Nanosecond risetime. 100MHz spectrum.
|>
|> Observation. Of course this is a concept you cannot understand.
|
| Observation proves flying saucers and magic.
|
| Without supporting sources it is Phil's Phantasy Physics.
| Where is a source that supports your belief in nanosecond risetimes and
| 100MHz spectrum?
Since you seem unwilling to just discuss technical aspects of things, I have
to conclude that you simply do not understand what it is you read and quote.
Too many times you quote out of context. I don't know where that is because
you are trying to be manipulative or simply on account of ignorance. There
is that old sayind "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by
ignorance". I don't know if I should follow it's advice.
There is no point in spending the effort to find some quotable source because
you wouldn't know what to do with it. How could you possibly comprehend what
I would give you if you can't even comprehend what you post.
After this round of followups, I'm done with this thread and I'm done replying
to you. If curing your ignorance is in your future, it will have to be from
someone else.
--
|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) |
In alt.engineering.electrical Eric <me@nomail.com> wrote:
| I can attest to vhf/uhf content in lightning strikes. I worked for a
| communications outfit. We owned and maintained a number of comm sites
| with towers and antennas. One strike on an antenna destroyed the LDF rf
| cable all the way to the polyphaser at the bottom of the tower. It had
| blowouts at about 1 foot intervals all down it's length suggesting a
| 1/2 wave of about 1 foot or approx 460 mhz. That's one hell of a lot of
| energy at that frequency..
Apparently you had some kind of resonance involved. Maybe the antenna itself
can cause that. Or the output tank circuit in the transmitter. Once you have
the resonance to narrowband the energy, it would only take a reflection back
up the line and you turn a propogating surge into standing waves.
--
|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 wrote:
>
> But when a plug-in protector is sold to maximize
> profits (not for protection), then grossly undersized protectors also
> create another problem - scary pictures:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no
reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with
suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since
1998.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.
For reliable information on surges and protection read the IEEE and NIST
guides. (Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.)
In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote:
|>
|> | Now - is this all germane to household protection? You say not and I agree
|> | with you- because household equipment can ride through - at worst- doubling
|> | of the clamped voltage for a very short time even though the clamped voltage
|> | is relatively small compared to the peak of the incoming surge. --
|>
|> My belief is that they
|> can, and will at times.
|
| People believe in flying saucers.
| Where is a source that supports your belief?
My observations support my belief. I don't expect YOU to believe it on the
basis if MY observations, as I certainly won't believe things on the basis
of YOUR observations. What I am posting about is for you to UNDERSTAND what
I believe, not that you have to believe it. Maybe someday you will come to
understand it, and then you might realize how you have misread what it is
you have been quoting online.
Since you spend all your keystrokes making person attacks or insisting on
something being cited, or make quotes that are often truncated incorrectly
or misapplied, I can only conclude you have no actual understanding of what
it is you have been quoting. What good would me citing anything do for you
if you can't understand it.
|> I do agree that things can survive at the clamping voltage. But there has to
|> be a clamping situation. It's too easy for a surge to come in as a common
|> mode surge where the voltage difference across the MOVs would be (nearly) zero.
|> Then all we have is a propogating wavefront. And if it is strong and/or close
|> then we have very fast rise times. And it passes by the MOVs "laterally".
|
| Where is a source that supports your belief in nanosecond risetimes and
| 100MHz spectrum?
Another poster followed up to my post you just followed up to that also has
experienced the same thing. That might not be some published citation that
you want. But that doesn't matter. It seems you can't comprehend what this
is about regardless of whether it is observed by others, or yourself, or by
the experts you cite.
|> But one thing I do see in at least part of this thread is that Bud
|> focuses on quoting things other people say, and does very little to express
|> things in his own words.
|
| I focus on the real world. You focus on your beliefs.
You focus on citing and quoting things you do not understand well enough to
just talking about them in technical terms.
| Where is a source that supports your belief in nanosecond risetimes and
| 100MHz spectrum?
See above.
And after this round of followups, I'm done with this thread and with your
posts on this subject. You can have the last say, but I will not even read
it.
--
|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) |
On May 5, 2:20*pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical trad...@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.
Maybe you should review what you actually stated in the context of
current surge supression discussion:
"
"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. "
That sure sounds like 50% of the surge is going through the MOV and
the other 50% is going on past it to the protected equipment.
And that I would have to agree with Bud on, it's phantasy physics,
because if it were true, no type of surge protection would work,
because it would only be 50% effective.
>
> --
> |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) |
Re: Surge / Ground / Lightning 
Linear Mode
