Easy Question - I Hope

The lie repeated.

The 2nd TV suffers 8,000V because a surge comes in on a cable service. Without a surge suppressor at the TV1 the voltage would have been

10,000V. The suppressor at TV1 causes no damage to TV2.

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 (a common problem). The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. So does sparky?s quote from the Federal Citizen Information Center.

In answer to the OP - look at the 2 examples of surge protection in the IEEE guide. One of them is for a TV and related equipment and uses a plug-in suppressor.

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - embarrassing 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"?

--
bud--
Reply to
bud--
Loading thread data ...

Effective or not effective surge protection. That's the difference.

Reply to
Ken

Bud says you must install $2000 or $3000 of surge protectors throughout the building. But IEEE says that surge on Page 42 Figure 8 damaged TV2 - 8000 volts destructively - because a surge was not earthed before entering the building. Let's see. $3000 for plug-in protectors or $1 per protected appliance for the effective solution. And the effective solution even protects from the type of surge that typically causes damage. None of those plug-in protectors claim to protect from that type of surge.

The IEEE is quite blunt about this in numerous standards. That surge energy must be dissipated. Bud says a plug-in protector will absorb or 'magically' make surge energy disappear. IEEE (and NIST, US Air Force, numerous IEEE authors, etc) all say that surge energy must be connected to (dissipated in) earth so that 8000 volts does not find earth ground destructively via TV2.

Why does Bud recommend $3000 of plug-in protectors? Profits. An honest Bud would have posted that plug-in manufacturer spec that lists protection from each type of surge. He refuses. No plug-in protector lists protection from surges in numeric specs. Why should they?

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. One 'whole house' protector properly earthed means that surge need not destroy TV2 with 8000 volts. This 'whole house' solution is called secondary protection. Bud also forgets to mention primary protection. Those who want real protection would also inspect their primary surge protection system:

formatting link

What is fundamental to the primary protection system? Same thing necessary for the secondary protection system: earth ground. A protector without that dedicated earthing somehow protects from typically destructive surges? Only in myths. No wonder Bud still cannot provide that manufacturer spec that claims protection.

Reply to
w_tom

The usual drivel. And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

And still never answered - embarrassing 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"?

--
bud--
Reply to
bud--

By which you seem to be saying plug-in suppressors are not effective.

With plug-in suppressors, the voltage between wires (power and signal) going to protected equipment is limited to a value safe for that equipment.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE guide has only 2 examples of surge suppression. Both use plug-in suppressors.

--
bud--
Reply to
bud--

Why does Page 42 Figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV? Bud conveniently forgets what his own citations say.

Having an 8000 volt surge inside the building is acceptable? Of course not. The point of Bud's citations: a protector without earthing may even contribute to appliance damage. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector means no such damage should occur. That 'whole house' protector means everything is protected without spending $3000 on Bud's plug-in protectors. Did Bud forget to mention how much he recommends spending for plug-in protectors? Bud tends to forget many embarrassing details.

Page 42 Figure 8 (like all of Bud's citations) shows why plug-in protectors provide ineffective protection from the typically destructive surge. Every Bud citation says an effective protector earths before destructive surges can enter a building. A protector too far from earth ground and too close to appliances may even contribute to damage of that appliance - 8000 volts destructively - Page 42 Figure 8. Bud conveniently forgets that part.

A protector recommended by Bud - he still refuses to provide a manufacturer spec that claims protection. Bud cannot provide what even the manufacturer does not claim. So Bud will post the same myths incessently to get the last post. Otherwise profits may be at risk.

Reply to
w_tom

It is w_?s favorite lie. Repeating: The 2nd TV suffers 8,000V because a surge comes in on a cable service. Without a surge suppressor at the TV1 the voltage would have been

10,000V. The suppressor at TV1 causes no damage to TV2.

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 (a common problem). The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to *use a multiport [plug-in] protector*."

Specs provided often and ignored. And I recommend only accurate information. The OP asked about using a plug-in suppressor to protect a TV. One of the 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide uses a plug-in suppressor to protect a TV. (The other uses a plug-in suppressor to protect a computer. Both have associated equipment.)

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work. Why doesn?t anyone agree with you w_??

And still never answered - embarrassing 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"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug?in suppressors are effective.

--
bud--
Reply to
bud--

In article , w_tom writes

You're lying again.

NOTHING in whit3rd's post refers to absorbing surges. He uses the word 'shunt' in the context of surge suppression, which indicates that he knows how they work (conducting a surge elsewhere).

w_toms's usual modus operandi: lies, misinformation, and deliberate twisting of what others say.

--
(\\__/)   Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(=\'.\'=)  http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mike Tomlinson

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.