How fast is an MOV? Really?

"ka-blooie" teaches that the protector was ineffective. After 1000 surges, an MOVs threshold voltage may change only 5%. It is degraded. Considered failed by manufacturer specs. Must never blow as others have exampled. Even a visual indication of degradation must not exist.

But when undersizing a protector so that it blows, the naive then promote it and buy more. No protector should even fail as Joerg and Rich Webb have exampled. And yet, that human safety threat is too common with power strip protectors.

More scary pictures of the human safety threat; including the NC fire marshal who explains why these ineffective protectors fail:

A sales promoter will be along shortly to deny this reality and to insult me. It is his job. Last place you want these protectors is inside the house on a carpet or with a desktop full of papers. Even Norma described this problem with MOVs that did what every MOV manufacturer is completely unacceptable. On 27 Dec 2008 in alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage" also describes the danger of power strip protectors:

Protectors that are properly designed do not create these human safety threats. That means earthing so that energy is harmlessly dissipated outside the building. Only more responsible manufacturers make these 'whole house' protectors. One protector to protect everything for tens or 100 times less money. General Electric, Cutler- Hammer, Intermatic, Keison, Square D, Siemens, and Leviton are just a few. Worry if your manufacturer is Belkin, APC, Tripplite, or Monster Cable.

MOVs that fail "ka-blooie" provided no appliance protection, were grossly undersized, and were a threat to human life. The effective protector even earths direct lightning strikes AND remains functional. Worse that can happen - its threshold voltage must change by less than 5%.

...said the turd.

Some one edged me to post this for you. It has been decided to be a perfect pictation on most of the material you post.

"

Ah, you admit to having no intelligence yourself. That's a start.

I thought that it fit you rather well. Bwuahahahahaha!

Yep, good company you keep.

w ignores what his hanford link says. 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. The "fire marshal" said the same thing.

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. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.

It is the usual rant from w against plug-in suppressors. Lacking valid technical arguments he resorts to scary pictures.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea. But from Martzloff, who was the NIST surge guru: "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 [electronic equipment], 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."

Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltages from developing between power and signal wires. Martzloff, using insurance data, suggests high voltage between power and signal wires is the major cause of equipment damage.

All these "responsible" manufacturers except SquareD make plug-in suppressors.

SquareD says for their "best" service panel suppressor "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

Still never seen - anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

--
bud--

=20

=20

=20

You, i am sure, realise that you are doing two things here; trying to "enlighten" a religious nutter, and trying to dispell the myths propagated by said religious nutter (westom). The first is usually futile, and the second often thankless. Thank you for whatever progress you make on either. .

The naive take cheap shots rather than explain technical facts. Good reasons why telcos don't waste money on bud's products. Good reasons why all telcos all over the world use 'whole house' protectors and better earthing. Telcos typically suffer 100 surges with each thunderstorm and must never have damage. How often is your town without phone service for four days while they replace the surge damaged switch? Why would they spend more money on bud's products that are ineffective, can even contribute to damage of adjacent electronics, and still require the 'whole house' protector? They don't.

If responding with electrical facts, then you would have learned this. Instead you can only attack the messenger? If you think bud is right, then post those manufacturer specs that claim protection. You cannot for the same reason that bud also routinely posts insults. Even the manufacturer does not claim that protection. Where are those numeric specs that claim protection? No insult to you even though you deserve it. Just facts that you cannot provide.

Oh no ! He's back... I thought I'd kill filed him already !

--
Best Regards:
                     Baron.

Oh no! The exclamation point retard is back!

Poor w. Nobody ever agrees with him.

w [formerly known as w_tom] posts religious dogma, not technical facts.

Facts:

- The IEEE has a guide on surge protection that has only 2 examples of protection - both of which use plug-in suppressors.

- The NIST has a guide on surge protection that says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".

- And the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

- The IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".

- All of w's favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors except SquareD.

- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".

And the #1 fact - w has never provided a source that agrees with him that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn't anyone in the known universe agree with you w????

I have provided specs often. So have others. w just ignores anything that does not fit in with his religious beliefs.

------------------------ In a previous post I said there is arc over at service panels at about

6kV (US). I should have added that the voltage after the arc is established falls to hundreds of volts, further limiting the energy that can be absorbed by MOVs.

--
bud--

The plug-in protector promoter again refuses to post a single manufacturer spec that claims that protection. Even his own citations show plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Same reason why telcos waste no money on his protectors. They need effective protection - not myths. So bud posts insults.

bud even accused Norma of lying. On 27 Dec 2008 in alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage" describes the danger of power strip protectors:

Bud said this cannot happen even though scary pictures and other's testimony show this threat. Even a fire marshal explains why. Of course. Protectors sold to maximize profits are undersized. Not one plug-in manufacturer claims to stop and absorb surges as bud claims. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So bud posts more insults - and denials of those scary pictures - potential house fires that most every fire company has seen.

Bud says his grossly overpriced protectors will stop and absorb what three miles of sky could not. Then posts insults rather then manufacturer protection specs. bud posts only what he understands. Same propaganda technique also used by Rush Limbaugh. Insults manipulate the naive. Only an informed consumers wants manufacturer specs. Bud cannot provide protection numbers that do not exist. Smoke, sparks, and burning are serious problems with plug-in protectors that will somehow stop and absorb what three miles of sky could not. Bud's denials are mockery, half truths, and insults. Bud even called Norma a liar. Profits are at risk.

Meanwhile, where does bud answer the OPs question. bud's job is to promote plug-in protectors. bud is only here to attack anyone who posts technical facts.

I addressed "bud" who has brought the facts to the party. Repeatedly here and elsewhere. You still blow off the publications of several major electrical manufacturers, UL and NASA. Your choice. .

And where is some technical data to back up your claims? .

I promote only accurate information to counter w's religious dogma.

I have often posted specs. w just ignores them and repeats the lie.

And a 10 year old could google for specs.

Apparently w can't google specs himself because the institution only lets w look at newsgroups - the internet has dirty pictures.

It is another of w's favorite lies. A plug-in suppressor in the IEEE guide example does not damage a second TV.

If his religious blinders would let him, w could discover what the IEEE guide says in this example:

- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.

- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

- w's favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection.

The example (pdf page 42) is from an excellent IEEE guide on surge protection:

The other guide that I often post is less technical and from the US-NIST:

Poor sensitive w is insulted by reality.

Poor w has frequent hallucinations.

Another frequent hallucination.

But because plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing, the village idiot thinks they work by stopping and absorbing. If his religious blinders would let him, w could read in the IEEE guide how plug-in suppressors actually work.

Neither manufacturers or I say suppressors work by stopping or absorbing.

w's statement of his religious belief in earthing.

Unfortunately for w, the IEEE guide explains that plug-in suppressors work primarily 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. And they do not work by stopping or absorbing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

The hallucination returns. Just say no to drugs.

w is only here to spread his religious belief in earthing and protect the universe from the scourge of plug-in suppressors.

w posts no technical facts. Never seen - anyone that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

And w has still never explained these technical facts:

- The IEEE guide has only 2 examples of protection - both of which use plug-in suppressors.

- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".

- The NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

- The IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".

- All of w's favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors except SquareD.

- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".

--
bud--

Read and addres many previous posts that include technical data. Including Page 42 Figure 8 from bud's citation and the quoted statements from his NIST citation that say, for example:

Where is earth ground for bud's protectors? Cited was where surge energy gets harmlessly dissipated. bud's solution has no such earthing, claims that energy will magically disappear, and well, where does bud even provide one manufacturer spec that claims protection? He does not because the manufacture makes no such claims. Even his own citations should how plug-in protectors can even contribute to appliance damage.

Just a sample of numerous previously posted facts which should have read before posting. Even bud's citations state why telcos don't waste money on plug-in protectors and why telcos so carefully earth 'whole house' protectors. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as defined even 100 years ago. No earth ground (ie plug-in protectors) means no effective protection. bud refused to provide even one protection spec. And for good reason. No plug-in protector claims to protect from the typically destructive surge.

Which is not what the OP was asking and which was answered by this poster before a sales promoter started his usual insults, myths, and lies. OP asked about MOV's response time which is so fast that even 2 inch lead impedance affects those measurements.

What part of bringing your own hard data instead of assailing others did you not understand? If you have it, bring it again, and again. By the way, i have seen very much of telco protection, and am less than pleased with it. If you were capable of considering where they, cost wise, must be comming from, you also could see that they only protect their stuff and let the customer beware. .

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

With minimal intelligence poor w could read in the IEEE guide how plug-in suppressors work.

The IEEE guide explains that earthing occurrs elsewhere.

It is only magic for w. Everyone else can figure out how plug-in suppressors work

Gee, why wouldn't a high amp hard wired telco switch use a plug-in suppressor which thousands of signal wires would have to go through. That's a tough one.

w's religious mantras protect him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

Never travel in an airplane. They seldom drag an earthing chain while flying, leaving their avionics totally exposed to lightning.

w then turned the thread into a diatribe on earthing and the evils of plug-in suppressors, just like he obsessive-compulsively does whenever anyone says "surge".

According to w, you cannot have protection at a device because it would not be earthed and "no earth ground means no effective protection". So many stupid people here thought you could protect a device.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say 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 agrees with him that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

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"?

- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

- Why do w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

--
bud--