phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:
>
> | Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
> | protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
> | I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
> | buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
> | surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
> | equipment in use?
>
> How much money are you willing to spend?
>
The only thing I can think of that comes close is to have a heavy
motor/generator set with a HUGE flywheel sitting in the basement.
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fvjhvk016vr@news5.newsguy.com...
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@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.
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
> | Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> |> Tony Hwang wrote:
> |>
> |>>Hi,
> |>>Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
> |>>Mine is VE6CGX.
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
> |>
> |>
> | Hmmm,
> | That is sign format of novice class.
>
> Which means my first ticket was novice. I upgraded a month after that.
Don't forget to renew it before June 16. From FCC:
KA9WGN Radio Service HA - Amateur
Status Active Auth Type Regular
Dates
Grant 06/16/1998 Expiration 06/16/2008
Effective 11/13/2003
> Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>>Hmmm,
>>Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
>>dropped.
>
>
>
> Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
> All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
> tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
> am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or
> _wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of dollars worth of
> damage. I had a studio building and STL tower in Leesburg Florida hit
> by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete from the building where
> the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical. It WAS an excellent example
> of _wacko_tom's UFER ground, before the steel vaporized inside damp
> concrete. 95% of the damage was caused by the EMP. I lost the 11 GHz
> Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system, all the computer terminals,
> and had some minor problems with other electronics. It turned out that
> the dead terminals all had high ESR electrolytics, and that they were
> working because they were all on UPS before the strike took out all the
> electricity. The power 1A2 supply needed some of the weird WE fuses,
> one KTU card and was back in service. The STL was mounted on the tower
> in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO module. It was 20 years old, and
> at least 10 years obsolete, so it needed that module updated, anyway.
>
> I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
> the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a STL
> transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for repair &
> upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I waited for the
> new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we had been hit. Then I
> moved the microwave racks to a closet in the corner of the building, and
> used 4" EMT between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
> have had strikes since then, but no problems.
>
>
Hi,
Qucik check on Buckmaster shows he was born in '55. Technician
plus(novice) holder. For his age, does not seem to have corresponding
wisdom.
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> | 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.
>
> 1. I *am* an amateur radio operator and I *do* know the difference.
>
> 2. Electromotive force is not a factor here, beyond what it might do to cause
> physical motion of wires during a surge (not impossible, but not usually
> considered).
>
Hmmm,
Lenz and Hertz?
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
> | 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.
>
> Your knowledge of electricity shows to be a very basic level. You completely
> lack an understanding of how electricity does flow. You have no concept at all
> of transmission lines (and Michael A. Terrell seems to have forgotten his).
> Credentials have nothing to do with whether a statement is correct or not.
> Mine is correct but you don't have sufficient background to even understand it.
>
Plonk!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet <nospam@noway.com> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:fvjhvk016vr@news5.newsguy.com...
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@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.
There are two kinds of impedance to deal with here. The first (literally)
is the characteristic impedance. At the point of the MOVs themselves, it
will be about the same each way, but it can vary some at higher frequencies.
It depends on the way the MOVs and the connections with them are constructed.
The second is the net impedance of the path beyond the MOV connections.
That impedance is not what I am talking about in my prior statement. Yes,
it plays a part, but it is not infliienced by the MOVs. It would be the
same if you simply shorted the MOVs with a wire (though that certainly
causes other things to not work, so that isn't how protection is done).
Ultimately you do have to consider the _whole_ system to get an accurate view
of exactly what will happen. Generally this is impractical. What you have
to do is understand what can happen with the variations, and try to change
things to make the happenings do what you prefer (e.g. avoid damage to the
protected devices).
One example involved the power wiring. There should be a point where you
have the neutral grounded, and heavy duty MOVs between each hot wire (be
that 1, 2 or 3) and the grounded wire, and between individual hot wires as
well. The grounded wire (referred to as neutral, but incorrectly in some
cases, even though this is the common referral) would be directly connected
to the path to ground. That connection should be with the least impedance
you can possibly get, within your cost/risk criteria. That means a short
and/or heavy conductor. Short to make it more effective at higher frequencies
by reducing inductive impedance. Heavy to handle a greater current flow.
Much of the surge can now take this path to ground. But not all of it will.
To maximize what will take the path to ground, and minimize what goes to the
building loads/devices that could be damaged, you need to have an increased
impedance on that path. Clearly resistors are not workable since that stops
the power itself, which you do not want to impede. What can work is a low
pass filter primarily an inductor. It needs to be made to have very little
effect at 60 Hz and below, yet block energy/power above that as much as is
possible (again, within your cost/risk criteria). The combination of these
things can limit the surge that reaches protected devices to a tiny fraction
of its original energy.
--
|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 "nobody >" <usenetharvested@aol.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels <SpamBucket@nospamplease.biz> wrote:
|>
|> | Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
|> | protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
|> | I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
|> | buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
|> | surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
|> | equipment in use?
|>
|> How much money are you willing to spend?
|>
|
| The only thing I can think of that comes close is to have a heavy
| motor/generator set with a HUGE flywheel sitting in the basement.
How about driving a generator in the basement with either a heavy fiberglass
axle rod driven at some distance by a (sacrificial) motor, or by a fluid that
does not conduct electricity through a turbine system, similarly driven by a
motor/pump at some distance.
--
|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 Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
|> Tony Hwang wrote:
|>
|>>Hmmm,
|>>Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
|>>dropped.
|>
|>
|>
|> Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
|> All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
|> tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
|> am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or
|> _wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of dollars worth of
|> damage. I had a studio building and STL tower in Leesburg Florida hit
|> by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete from the building where
|> the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical. It WAS an excellent example
|> of _wacko_tom's UFER ground, before the steel vaporized inside damp
|> concrete. 95% of the damage was caused by the EMP. I lost the 11 GHz
|> Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system, all the computer terminals,
|> and had some minor problems with other electronics. It turned out that
|> the dead terminals all had high ESR electrolytics, and that they were
|> working because they were all on UPS before the strike took out all the
|> electricity. The power 1A2 supply needed some of the weird WE fuses,
|> one KTU card and was back in service. The STL was mounted on the tower
|> in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO module. It was 20 years old, and
|> at least 10 years obsolete, so it needed that module updated, anyway.
|>
|> I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
|> the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a STL
|> transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for repair &
|> upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I waited for the
|> new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we had been hit. Then I
|> moved the microwave racks to a closet in the corner of the building, and
|> used 4" EMT between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
|> have had strikes since then, but no problems.
|>
|>
| Hi,
| Qucik check on Buckmaster shows he was born in '55. Technician
| plus(novice) holder. For his age, does not seem to have corresponding
| wisdom.
Whose wisdom are you judging? What have you see that I have posted that you
think is wrong? Would you like to debate the technical points? Or do you
just want to be one of those people that can only "win" by making personal
attacks?
--
|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 Tony Hwang <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|
|> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
|> | 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.
|>
|> 1. I *am* an amateur radio operator and I *do* know the difference.
|>
|> 2. Electromotive force is not a factor here, beyond what it might do to cause
|> physical motion of wires during a surge (not impossible, but not usually
|> considered).
Things like motors and generators, including Faraday's homopolar generator,
are interesting things to talk about (IMHO) ... in a different thread. Bring
it up (post a new thread) if you have a point to say or a question to ask.
It should generally go in alt.engineering.electrical, only, not the many other
groups that have been put in this thread.
--
|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
