w_tom wrote:
> On May 8, 12:11 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>>> UL makes no effort to measure a protector's protective ability.
>> Cuttler Hammer says you are wrong.
>> <URL deleted>
>
> Again Bud misrepresents what professional say.
Sorry I picked up the wrong URL. The correct one is
> UL does not measure protection - in direct contradiction
> to what Bud posts.
Using the correct URL, the CH cite above says suppressors have to remain
functional through an initial set of surges (20 surges - 6kv, 3kA). That
is significant functionality.
They can fail safely after that. (Although CH does not say it, I believe
the test for plug-in suppressors is at a lower current.)
> A protector can completely fail during UL1449
> testing and still be approved.
It can fail after significant functionality (above) has been
established. For instance when subjected to long overvoltage a
suppressor can fail safely.
>
> Meanwhile, Bud repeatedly claims that protectors create fires
> because UL1449 was created in 1998.
w_ is so stupid he still can’t figure out the difference between a
creation date and a revision date.
UL1449-2ed (1998) requires thermal disconnects.
> UL1449 was approved in 1987 as
> Cutler-Hammer also says. Again, Cutler-Hammer disagrees with what
> Bud posts.
With minimal intelligence w_ could read in old link "UL1449(2nd edition
1996 [publication date])".
In the new link, 1st sentence: "The Second Edition of UL1449 became
effective August 17, 1998."
> Numerous plug-in protectors after 1998 with UL approval
> still create a fire risk – the scary pictures:
Lacking valid technical arguments, w_ continues to lie about scary pictures.
None of the links say a damaged suppressor even had a UL label.
Still missing - a link to any source that says UL listed plug-in
suppressors made after 1998 are a problem.
> A protector is only as effective as its earth
> ground.
w_'s religious mantra will protect him from evil.
Still missing - a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Still missing – answers to embarrassing 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 reliable information read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
w_tom wrote:
>
>Plug-in protector typically uses as
> little or less than 1/3rd and never more than 2/3rds of rated joules
> during protection.
Depends on the surge that arrives. Like a service panel suppressor, buy
one with adequate ratings.
>
> An effective 'whole house' protector uses 100% of its joules for all
> types of surges
Depends on the surge that arrives.
>
> A plug-in protector rated at 330 volts will start conducting at
> maybe 200 volts. When a larger surge occurs, it conducts at 900
> volts.
Large surges can hit service panels so you might get 900V at the
service. The significant impedance of a branch circuit for surges
greatly limits the current that can reach a plug-in suppressor. Many
sources recommend adding a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive"
electronics to further limit the service panel let-through voltage.
>
> Bud posts that electronics contain internal protection of 600 or 800
> volts. Intel ATX specs demand that internal protection exceed 1000
> volts.
bud quotes Martzloff who says 600-800V.
> Just another reason why 330 or 400 let-through volts is
> irrelevant.
As usual, w_ can’t understand Martzloff. Voltage let-through is
important to Martzloff because the lowest values cause suppressors to
conduct on surges that are not damaging to connected equipment, which
shortens the lifetime of the suppressor.
>
> "My surge protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".
> Reality. A protector was so grossly undersized that voltage exceeded
> 900 volts.
In w_'s mind, plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings, service
panel suppressors have mega ratings. Plug-in suppressors are readily
available with very high ratings for relatively low cost.
And w_ only buys special MOVs that self destruct at 900V. All the others
depend on energy absorbed.
> MOV did what no MOV must do - vaporize.
w_ buys also only buys unlabeled Chinese suppressors that do not have
the UL required thermal disconnect.
Still can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective?
krw wrote:
> In article <OKadnRdUKpg42L7VnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> me@nomail.com says...
>>> Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?
>>>> It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
>>>> ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
>>>> lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
>>>> house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
>>>> be used simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)
>>>>
>> I think they used to ring between the red green for one party, yellow
>> green for the other party, black green, etc.
>
> No, that would defeat the purpose of the party line. The ringers
> either had "distinctive ring" (once for Mabel, twice for Maude) or
> were frequency tuned.
>
They did frequency and distinctive rings. But for 2 parties you can ring
red-to-ground for one and green-to-ground for the other. It is in Mike's
Wikipedia link above. My recollection is black was ground and yellow was
sometimes used for a light in the phone (red and green are phone wires).
In article <bc45f$48248dbc$4213ea37$25354@DIALUPUSA.NET>, remove.budnews@isp.com says...
> krw wrote:
> > In article <OKadnRdUKpg42L7VnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > me@nomail.com says...
> >>> Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?
> >>>> It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
> >>>> ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
> >>>> lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
> >>>> house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
> >>>> be used simultaneously.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)
> >>>>
> >> I think they used to ring between the red green for one party, yellow
> >> green for the other party, black green, etc.
> >
> > No, that would defeat the purpose of the party line. The ringers
> > either had "distinctive ring" (once for Mabel, twice for Maude) or
> > were frequency tuned.
> >
>
> They did frequency and distinctive rings. But for 2 parties you can ring
> red-to-ground for one and green-to-ground for the other. It is in Mike's
> Wikipedia link above. My recollection is black was ground and yellow was
> sometimes used for a light in the phone (red and green are phone wires).
Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
(IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
of years).
krw wrote:
>
> Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
> transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
> (IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
> of years).
The lamp was on yellow & black. Red & Green are the pair to the CO.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
In article <MPG.228ed36d8abd368c989c07@news.individual.net> krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> writes:
>f4eb2$0$31762$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <Dy1TI6EgG1HIFwwe@jasper.org.uk> <d75666d1-5cc7-4955-ac34-b666e67e9ced@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <8fa76$482087fc$4213ea45$31115@DIALUPUSA.NET> <e4j0qrIHfMIIFw7G@jasper.org.uk> <76535$4821baa0$4213eb20$7766@DIALUPUSA.NET> <MQOww8Lz4kIIFwaB@jasper.org.uk> <72ae0$48232b9a$4213eac2$18448@DIALUPUSA.NET> <OKadnRdUKpg42L7VnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com> <MPG.228d56c19f58fa89989bf7@news.individual.net> <bc45f$48248dbc$4213ea37$25354@DIALUPUSA.NET>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: individual.net 3POWAdBHT/AQLNg6QyObPgN2qBNF3foOsqw8tsoIJdTH9HWfec
>Cancel-Lock: sha1:aGa2E++HGN4b0KEf1TQhRkWJJts=
>User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067
>Xref: shelby.stanford.edu alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:482039 alt.home.repair:656474 alt.tv.tech.hdtv:178799 sci.electronics.basics:272742
>
>In article <bc45f$48248dbc$4213ea37$25354@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
>remove.budnews@isp.com says...
>> krw wrote:
>> > In article <OKadnRdUKpg42L7VnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> > me@nomail.com says...
>> >>> Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?
>> >>>> It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
>> >>>> ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
>> >>>> lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
>> >>>> house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
>> >>>> be used simultaneously.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)
>> >>>>
>> >> I think they used to ring between the red green for one party, yellow
>> >> green for the other party, black green, etc.
>> >
>> > No, that would defeat the purpose of the party line. The ringers
>> > either had "distinctive ring" (once for Mabel, twice for Maude) or
>> > were frequency tuned.
>> >
>>
>> They did frequency and distinctive rings. But for 2 parties you can ring
>> red-to-ground for one and green-to-ground for the other. It is in Mike's
>> Wikipedia link above. My recollection is black was ground and yellow was
>> sometimes used for a light in the phone (red and green are phone wires).
>
>Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
>transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
>(IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
>of years).
6 volts as I recall. I had one of the transformers around ages ago,
it may still be stashed somewhere.
Not sure about the pair, though, since green/red is tip/ring of pair
one, black/yellow is tip/ring of pair two. Putting the transformer between
green and yellow would be putting the light current on the talk pair,
which would be inviting hum on the line.
More modern wiring uses:
colors:
main/stripe
-----------
white/blue green tip 1
blue/white red ring 1
white/orange black tip 2
orange/white yellow ring 2
Similarly, I would question the reliability of ring on a single line referencing
ground, since party lines tended to be out longer distances -- the ground resistivity
would make it more difficult to get ring current to the phone(s).
I think the differing ring frequency would make more sense, since mechanical
resonance in the ringer provides a reasonable tuning mechanism.
In article <g03g3n$lj5$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, Alan
<nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu> writes
> Similarly, I would question the reliability of ring on a single line
>referencing
>ground, since party lines tended to be out longer distances -- the ground
>resistivity
>would make it more difficult to get ring current to the phone(s).
It did work though. The mechanical bells in older phones in the UK had
a lower impedance (500 ohm coils vs. 2000 ohm coils in newer phones), so
the ringer would draw more current. The ringer was also two bells
either side of a balanced clapper, so it took little to make it ring -
the more current it was able to draw from the line, the louder it rang.
I remember a neighbour with a party line whose phone had problems -
calling her would give a ring tone in the earpiece, but she would claim
that she had never heard the phone ring. Several visits from the GPO
(as was BT) engineers found no fault, the phone always working when they
visited.
Eventually it was discovered that her party line was grounded via the
waste pipe (lead pipe into a cast iron stack disappearing into the
ground) of her cloakroom toilet, which was little used, and in the
summer, when the ground dried out and the water in the toilet pan
evaporated and ran low, the phone lost its earth and failed to ring.
Flushing the toilet restored normal operation to the phone
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>
> In article <g03g3n$lj5$1@news.Stanford.EDU>, Alan
> <nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu> writes
>
> > Similarly, I would question the reliability of ring on a single line
> >referencing
> >ground, since party lines tended to be out longer distances -- the ground
> >resistivity
> >would make it more difficult to get ring current to the phone(s).
>
> It did work though. The mechanical bells in older phones in the UK had
> a lower impedance (500 ohm coils vs. 2000 ohm coils in newer phones), so
> the ringer would draw more current. The ringer was also two bells
> either side of a balanced clapper, so it took little to make it ring -
> the more current it was able to draw from the line, the louder it rang.
>
> I remember a neighbour with a party line whose phone had problems -
> calling her would give a ring tone in the earpiece, but she would claim
> that she had never heard the phone ring. Several visits from the GPO
> (as was BT) engineers found no fault, the phone always working when they
> visited.
>
> Eventually it was discovered that her party line was grounded via the
> waste pipe (lead pipe into a cast iron stack disappearing into the
> ground) of her cloakroom toilet, which was little used, and in the
> summer, when the ground dried out and the water in the toilet pan
> evaporated and ran low, the phone lost its earth and failed to ring.
> Flushing the toilet restored normal operation to the phone
In article <482525B3.3AC27A9E@earthlink.net>, mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
> krw wrote:
> >
> > Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
> > transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
> > (IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
> > of years).
>
>
> The lamp was on yellow & black. Red & Green are the pair to the CO.
<slap!> There I was typing, looking at bud-'s post and *STILL* got
the wires crossed. I *shoulda* had a V8.
krw wrote:
>
> In article <482525B3.3AC27A9E@earthlink.net>,
> mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
> > krw wrote:
> > >
> > > Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
> > > transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
> > > (IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
> > > of years).
> >
> >
> > The lamp was on yellow & black. Red & Green are the pair to the CO.
>
> <slap!> There I was typing, looking at bud-'s post and *STILL* got
> the wires crossed. I *shoulda* had a V8.
No big deal. Do you remember that wall wart being the first one
recalled for being a fire hazard?
Re: Surge / Ground / Lightning 
Linear Mode
