w_tom wrote:
>
> On May 2, 4:24 pm, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
> > do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
> > subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
> > in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
> > actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
> > both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
> > as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
> > protection and can be part of an effective solution.
>
> trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
> posted. Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
> surge that typically does not do damage. How would you know? Well,
> w_tom said it repeatedly - and trader ignored it. trader routinely
> ignored what he did not understand or did not want to understand.
>
> Typically destructive surges seek earth ground.
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.
Take a look in the Google archives and see if you can find even one
post agreeing with tom, and his crackpot theories. He doesn't
understand the concept that a piece of wire is more than a lump of
metal, that it has inductance, resistance, and capacitance between it
and other conductors. The only thing tom is qualified to write about is
aluminum foil hats.
On May 3, 6:04 am, nicksans...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> Bull****. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.
Yes, high impedance can supplement protection when high impedance is
part of a system that also includes the only essential component in
any surge protection system: a low impedance (short, no sharp bends,
no splices, etc) connection to single point earth ground. High
impedance does not provide protection; can only supplement effective
protection. Effective protection is a low impedance connection to
single point earth ground.
Why is the 'whole house' protector so effective? Page 42 Figure 8
demonstrates what happens when a protector is too far from earth
ground and too close to the appliance.. Effective protector includes
separation (higher impedance) from the protected appliance AND a short
(low impedance) connection to earth ground. That low impedance
connection is essential. High impedance can only supplement the
protection and is not effective when that low impedance earth
connection does not exist.
Will a high impedance stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
not? Of course not. Obviously not. And yet some just know
otherwise. Will that silly little one inch part inside a plug-in
protector stop what three miles of sky could not? Of course not.
Without that short (low impedance) and essential connection to
earth, only then can a high impedance connection do something useful.
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?
See many posts that describe this same failure to a network of
powered off computers. Surge incoming on wires that typically carry
most surges into buildings: black (hot) AC wire. Surge arrived two
plug-in protectors - each adjacent to powered off computers. Often
that surge is trivial; does not overwhelm protection inside a
computer's power supply. Maybe - but irrelevant due to the adjacent
protector.
Protector did its job - MOVs shunted (connected, diverted) surge
current into all other AC wires including the green safety ground
wire. Green wire connects directly to motherboard and network cards -
still seeking earth ground.
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.
Plug-in protector is not for and does not claim to protect from this
typically destructive type of surge. Often surges are too trivial to
overwhelm power supply circuits. But because that protector was too
close to powered off computers and too far from earth ground, then
surge was given an alternative and destructive path to earth ground
via networked computers.
Plug-in protectors are for surges that typically don't cause
damage. When the essential 'whole house' protector is not earthed,
then plug-in protectors may earth surges destructively through
adjacent appliances. Every time? Of course not. But the same
ineffective protection is demonstrated in Bud's citation - 8000 volts
destructively on Page 42 Figure 8. That surge was permitted inside
the building. Plug-in protector did nothing to avert 8000 volts
destructively via the adjacent TV. Bud says otherwise by denying Page
42 Figure 8.
Page 42 Figure 8 eliminated by properly earthing a 'whole house'
protector. Surges that seek earth ground destructively through
household appliances must be earthed at the service entrance.
What would have avoided above network damage? Homeowner later
installed and earthed a 'whole house' protector. Solution necessary
so that plug-in protectors do not earth surges, destructively, though
adjacent appliances, even on Page 42 Figure 8. Solution necessary so
that protection from a typically destructive surge exists.
On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
> same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
> are not overlapping in what they talk about.
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. As demonstrated
repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.
So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.
If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?
If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.
Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
installed.
Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
will do no harm".
Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
damage – that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.
Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don’t seek earth
ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
does not cause damage.
On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
> same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
> are not overlapping in what they talk about.
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. As demonstrated
repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.
So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.
If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?
If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.
Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
installed.
Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
will do no harm".
Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
damage – that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.
Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don’t seek earth
ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
does not cause damage.
> On May 3, 6:40 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
>
>>The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
>>same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
>>are not overlapping in what they talk about.
>
>
> 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. As demonstrated
> repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
> typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
> problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.
>
> So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
> appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
> entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
> install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.
>
> If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
> money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
> destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
> better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
> by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?
>
> If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
> created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.
>
> Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
> protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
> That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
> another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
> house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
> installed.
>
> Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
> surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
> many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
> by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
> will do no harm".
>
> Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
> the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
> damage – that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
> Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
> point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
> this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
> and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.
>
> Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don’t seek earth
> ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
> house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
> adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
> it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
> does not cause damage.
Hmmm,
I experienced a direct lightning strike on a 7 story building. In the
basement there was a large(I mean LARGE) scale data center which I was
in charge of.
The strike clobbered all the data stored in mass storage sub system
requiring 3 days' total system restore. I think when surge is BIG,
nothing can be protected from it.
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
| On 3 May 2008 09:46:09 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net put finger to
| keyboard and composed:
|
|>In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
|>| On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> put
|>| finger to keyboard and composed:
|>|
|>|>On May 1, 2:18?pm, ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>|>> Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
|>|>> damages from from surges and lightning offer non such ?claim or
|>|>> warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
|>|>> step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
|>|>> times, anything you do helps a bit.
|>|>
|>|> Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
|>|>destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
|>|>through it.
|>|
|>| Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
|>| through the TV?
|>
|>A surge will take _every_ path. Where that ends up with a voltage difference
|>somewhere, anywhere, that exceeds the device breakdown voltage, then you will
|>have current flow across there. And if that breakdown means damage, as it
|>would for things like a CMOS circuit component, the device would be damaged.
|
| True but irrelevant to my question. I wanted specific examples in
| support of the claim that "some things installed will decrease
| protection".
Installing something that ends up creating a situation where you will have a
big voltage difference where you otherwise would not is such an example.
| A strike on the mains would be clamped to the earth pin by MOVs. It
| may still be that the antenna provides a second path to earth which
| would mean that the TV could be damaged that way. However, the absence
| of an earth pin would result in an even higher differential voltage
| between mains and antenna which would mean an even greater likelihood
| of damage. OTOH, if the strike arrived via the antenna, then the
| presence or absence of the earth pin should make very little
| difference AFAICS.
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.
The antenna "second path to earth" could provide that difference in voltage
that can lead to substantial and damaging current. However, if you bring
the antenna feedline in at the point electric power comes in, and ground
everything in common, then whatever voltage rise you get in low frequencies
will be fairly equal between power connection and antenna connection. The
strike coming in on the antenna is not really any different, except in the
high frequencies. The antenna feedline does not degrade the high frequencies
as much as the power lines.
The high frequencies can still be an issue. They are less common so if you
are just trying to reduce your risk then this is a good start. Most energy
is in lower frequencies (though this varies by means of entry). But there
are ways to deal with the high frequency energy as well, if you want to go
that far. It just depends on how much you want to spend to get how much
protection.
--
|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.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| I experienced a direct lightning strike on a 7 story building. In the
| basement there was a large(I mean LARGE) scale data center which I was
| in charge of.
| The strike clobbered all the data stored in mass storage sub system
| requiring 3 days' total system restore. I think when surge is BIG,
| nothing can be protected from it.
The majority of data centers are protected from a lightning strike only at a
minimal level. I disagree about there being nothing to protect from "BIG"
strikes. But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on 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) |
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".
--
|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) |
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".
Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
difference.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Re: Surge / Ground / Lightning 
Linear Mode
