w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 22, 12:37 pm, bud-- <remove.budn....TakeThisOut@isp.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide
>> explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
>
> It works by clamping that energy ... to earth ground.
..
For anyone with minimal reading and thinking ability the IEEE guide
illustration shows plug–in suppressors working by clamping the voltage
on all wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the plug-in
suppressor.
**The link to the IEEE guide is bad. Use:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion...y051.pd
..
> Surge energy
> must be dissipated somewhere. If a protector has no earth connection,
> then surge energy will be clamped (connected, shunted, diverted)
> where?
..
In this illustration, the IEEE guide says "So the vast majority of the
incoming lightning surge current flows through" the cable entry block
`ground' wire. The guide further says that is "as the NEC/CEC writers
intended." If w_ could only read....
..
> Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates TV damage because 1) the
> protector is too far from earth ground AND 2) located adjacent to the
> TV. Surge is clamped (diverted), 8000 volts destructively, through
> the adjacent TV.
..
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.
Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.
..
> Page 42 Figure 8 is the point of Bud's citation.
..
The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service ‘ground’ is too long (as in my previous post). The IEEE guide
says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is
to use a multiport protector."
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s belief in earthing he has to
twist what the IEEE guide says about them.
>
> Bud says his plug-in protectors do not work by earthing.
..
The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors, which are not mine, do not work
primarily by earthing.
..
> He also claims that protector is a complete 'magic box'
> solution.
..
Only a ’magic box’ to w_, because he can’t understand how they work.
..
> Plug-in specs do not
> even claim to provide surge protection. Bud is repeatedly challenged
> to provide those numbers. He cannot. He never does. Bud routinely
> ignores the question.
..
The last plug-in suppressor I bought had 1 MOV that was 1475J, 75,000A
and 2 that were 590J 30,000A. Cost under $30. Previously posted and
ignored.
>
> Take a $3 power strip. Add some ten cent parts.
..
One of the MOVs in the suppressor above has a rating of 75,000A and
1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.
>
> Grossly undersized is another problem with protectors built for
> maximum profit. Scary pictures are from fire departments, Fire
> Marshal, and others:
> 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.
..
> Bud's citation contradicts him again:
..
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and as quoted previously:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."
>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide says plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides says 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.
w_ has never answered simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud--
>> Stay informed about: Surge protector 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
