He is either the dumbest piece of crap to ever access the Internet, or the most persistent troll. He doesn't understand anything about anything, including his on cites. It has all been explained to him, time after time, but he refuses to admit that he's wrong.
Just keep a 6' pry bar handy to get your boot out of his ass when you kick him! He isn't worth losing a good boot! :-)
. A common mode surge to a TV enters on hot *and* neutral. The subject is common mode - see the top quote. w_ has still not answered how a common mode surge gets past the N-G bond required in US services. What a surprise. .
. Who (in this thread) says plug-in suppressors are effective?
- Nist guide
- IEEE guide
- IEEE Emerald book
- Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down house
Who says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective?
- w_ .
. As I have pointed out several times, specs have already been posted in this thread.
w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels - if you repeat the lie often enough, people will believe it. Too bad w_, it doesn?t seem to be working.
But still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." ? How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?
For real science tread the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Every one shows or states that the plug-in protector can contribute to appliance damage. Every one states why the effective protector must be earthed. But when one's job is to lie to promoted scam protector sales, then one must deny what ever source says is necessary for protection.
In every case, the protector is only a connection (diverts to) earth ground. From Bud's NIST citation:
From Martzloff:
Iif this was wrong, then Bud would post those numeric specs on every plug-in protector that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge. Why does Bud refuse to post those specs? Even the manufacturer will not make Bud's protection claims. Bud cannot post protection specs because not one plug-in protector makes that claim. So Bud does what a sales promoter must do when confronted by an engineer - lie.
The effective protector *diverts* surge energy into earth. A surge not dissipated in earth will be dissipated destructively inside appliances. It is that simple. Bud must lie, spin, and insult to avoid that reality. Bud's job is to protect obscene profits. Honesty is not Bud.
. Intelligence is not w_.
Ho-hum. Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." ? How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?
For real science tread the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
When reality threatens profits, Bud often posts insults in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh. To some, insults are proof. Even Bud's NIST citation says what an effective protector does:
Which is it? Magically suppress that surge energy as Bud says, or divert surge energy to earth?
Sun Microsystems' Planning Guide for a Sun Server Room says same:
Bud promotes protectors that have no earth ground. Even his own citations demonstrate damage when a protector does not have a short earthing connection. Page 42 Figure 8. That surge still must find earth ground. A plug-in protector simply gave that surge more paths to earth - 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances.
Bud - whose job is to protect obscene profits - will say anything to avoid facts. However, if his plug-in protector did provide protection, then Bud could simply post those numeric specs. Oh? No plug-in protector will claim protection in numeric specs? No wonder Bud will ask irrelevant questions, post insults, and never post those specs. Bud cannot post spec numbers that do not exist. So Bud will even post insults - because profits are at risk.
Bud never provides a solution for the OP. Bud cannot. The OP's solution is also the best protection for all homes. No two wire to three wire receptacle upgrades required. Simply upgrade breaker box earthing to meet and exceed post 1990 code (also provides human safety) AND install one 'whole house' protector. Best solution also costs less money.
. The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.
But still not provided - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." ? How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?
For real science tread the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
More insults from Bud who cannot answer the only relevant fact. Where does a plug-in protector manufacturer claim protection in numeric specs? Bud refuses.
Even every one of Bud's citations from the NIST and IEEE show how and why plug-in protectors don't provide protection AND can contribute to adjacent appliance damage. 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
No earth ground means no effective protection. But a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts selling for up to $150 is promoted by Bud. Profits - not protection - are Bud's purpose. Effective protector has a short connection to earth.
Bud will reply with more insults and still no manufacturer specs. Even manufacturers do not claim what Bud posts. Honesty is not Bud. Posting insults when engineering facts do not exist =96 that is the sales promoter Bud.
How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even basic principals?
And the #1 question w_ can't answer:
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?
He gets more respect than he deserves. He would have embarrassed Rodney Dangerfield. :(
You criticize but never provide basic electrical principles as even taught in first year EE courses. Don't forget to cite your designs that did and did not prevent surge damage as I have. Of course you have generations of experience building this stuff? Or do you know only because plug-in protectors are promoted just like Saddam's WMDs?
Even Bud's citations state why a plug-in protector does and does not work. Even demonstrated is a plug-in protector contributing to appliance damage - as we engineers have also observed over the many decades. Every responsible source says why a protector without earthing does not provide protection. But if Sjouke knows better, then why does he not post those facts and numbers?
Why do telcos not use Bud's 'clamping to nothing' principles? Why do all responsible sources state where surge energy must be dissipated? Sjouke - since you know better, then fill us with your wisdom. Tell us how Bud's protector - that does not even claim to provide protection - somehow earths surges. Explain how Bud's 'clamping to nothing' makes surge energy disappear.
Or do you just know (as so many others) because you were educated by retail salesmen? The majority also *proved* Saddam had WMDs using Sjouke's logic.
John cited a protector's joules as proof that protectors work by absorbing all of a surge. If true, then a better protector - with more joules - will absorb even more surge joules? Wrong. A better protector - higher joules - absorbs *less* joules. Why? Obvious if grasping what every citation says or reading MOV V-I curves.
Example: a 100 joule MOV conducting 2000 amperes will absorb about
100 joules - trivial energy (a kilowatt hour is 3.6 million joules) - while dissipating maybe 5000+ joules into earth. A ten times larger (1000 joule 'whole house') protector absorbs less: 75 joules during the same 2000 amp surge. Why? Better protection means the protector absorbs even less energy in direct contradiction to what John Fields only assumed.Protectors don't work by absorbing the surge just like wires do not work by absorbing energy. Better protectors and wires absorb even less energy. Effective protection *diverts* more surge energy into earth. How does John Fields deny this? He cites the definition of joules in Wikipedia rather than learn what those joules actually measure in datasheets.
John also confuses a typically non-destructive surge with common mode surges. Shunt (connect, clamp) all wires together and that surge energy remains; still requiring a path to earth. Page 42 Figure 8 - that John admits he did not read - demonstrated what a plug-in protector (without earthing) does while shunting all wires together. That surge energy still must find a path to earth ground - ie 8000 volts destructively via an adjacent TV. Shunting (clamping, connecting) wires together does nothing to make that surge energy disappear. This has been explained to John multiple times. But he does not grasp the electrical concept of a common mode surge.
John suggests buying more plug-in protectors as Bud recommends. A homeowner must purchase $2000 or $3000 in plug-in protectors. After all, spending tens or 100 times less money to protect everything is what - too smart? Why does John Fields recommend separate protectors for the furnace, every clock radio, each GFCI, the microwave, dishwasher, dryer, etc? John somehow knows that earthing, as recommended by every responsible source, does not provide protection?
According to John, the OP must rewire an entire building with three wire receptacles. But one 'whole house' protector with earthing (as also required by code) answers the OP's questions while providing effective and superior protection. A superior solution also costs tens or 100 times less money. Somehow John Fields knows otherwise while even refusing to read engineers teaching surge protection in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".
John Fields does not even know the difference between wire impedance and characteristic impedance. How does John Fields deny this? He cites another Wikipedia article on characteristic impedance - and still does not comprehend wire impedance. If John had engineering training and understood common mode, then characteristic impedance obviously is irrelevant. Characteristic impedance is not wire impedance.
Provided was a front page article from Electrical Engineering Times describing wire impedance AND why low wire impedance is essential for surge protection. John refuses to read that either. John assumes wire impedance and characteristic impedance is same. Therefore he knows what a protector can work without grounding when all responsible sources require that earthing.
A plug-in protector is complete protection? Good. John Fields then posts manufacturer numeric specs for each type of surge and protection from that surge. No such protection spec exists. Only listed are joules. John Fields has so little grasp as to assume a few hundred or
1000 joules will absorb a direct lightning strike. Protectors don't protect by absorbing the entire surge as John posts. But if protectors did, well, a 1000 joule surge is a near zero (almost non- existent) surge. Just another engineering fact that John did not learn.John - effective protection is not about limiting voltage between two wires. Those surges typically are not destructive. Effective protection is about diverting energy from every wire into earth. Only shunt (clamp) some wires together and the surge still exists. Still exists with more wires to find earth ground 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
John - you don't know the difference between characteristic impedance and wire impedance. You cannot provide a spec that claims protection. You don't understand what joules measures in an MOV - higher joule protector means less joules is absorbed during the same surge. You cannot even bother to read citations such as EE Times or Page 42 Figure 8. You just know without first learning. And you don't have EE training.
Effective protection means surge energy must be dissipated in earth and before entering a building. That solution is available to the OP
- or did John Fields also forget the OP question?
w_tom Inscribed thus:
Drivel Snipped.
-- Best Reagrds: Baron.
Did you work for the Psychic Hotline? The point of the illustration for the IEEE is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
The illustration does not show a plug-in suppressor at TV1 contributing to adjacent appliance damage. It is one of w_'s favorite lies.
. w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the lack of supporting sources.
Like - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
And still missing - answers to 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." ? How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?
Why can't you ever answer simple questions w_? Why should anyone believe you???
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
So does Progress Energy. They did a demo on TV with a pair of 120 V
100W lamps. They were plugged into two wall outlets. One was plugged into a surge protector, and the other wasn't. The pair was hit with a surge, and the unprotected bulb blew its filament.
And again, insufficient knowledge even for a technician. If MOVs work by absorbing surges, then voltage must increase to absorb more surge. But MOVs don't do that. MOVs conduct more current (by decreasing voltage) so that minimal energy is absorbed and more energy can be dissipated elsewhere.
John saw the word 'joules', then assumed MOVs stop surges by absorbing all joules. Well, yes, just like wire transfers energy by absorbing all energy.
If John had studied V-I charts as an engineer, then daming evidence would be obvious. Again the obvious example. Whereas the 100 joule MOV absorbs 100 joules during a 2000 amp surge; the better 1000 joule protector absorbs only 75 joules while conducting that same 2000 amp surge. Why? Better surge protectors absorb LESS surge energy. Obvous even in those V-I charts that John never studied.
John does what many TV repairmen do. He assumes that by shunting two wires together, then surge energy will magically disappear. Shunting two wires together only gives a surge more paths to find earth ground. With or without those wires together, the surge still most connect to earth. If one of those wires is a 'less than10 foot' connection to earth, then all surge energy gets dissipiated harmlessly in earth. If no earthing connection. then a surge has more wires to find earth ground even destructively through adjacent appliances - Page 42 Figure 8.
To understand this, John must learn what wire impedance is. But John (without basic electrical training) confuses relevant wire impedance with obvioiusly irrelevant characteristic impedance. Even a trained tech would not make that mistake. John does not understand wire impedance, did not study those MOV V-I charts, but magically knows what MOVs do.
If MOVs works as John decrees, then why does a larger joule MOV absorb so much less energy? Because an ideal best protector absorbs no energy; diverts (shunts, connects, clamps) all surge energy harmlessly into earth.
How does a tiny joule MOV absorb so much more energy? It does not. Effective MOVs shunt surges to be dissipated in earth. John even believes a 1000 joule MOV must absorb more energy. Hdid not even comprehend MOV datasheets.
Page 42 Figure 8 shows damage inside the building because a surge was not earthed by one 'whole house' proector. Bud now recommends spending $3000 on plug-in protectors. You should replace these every three years So what protects the dishwasher, furnance, smoke detectors ... Oh. Instead of destroying TV2, other critical appliances that cannot use plug-in protectors get destroyed. That is Bud's recommendaton. Spend obscene money on his products.
One properly earthed 'whole house' protector means better protection for everything at about $1 per protected appliance. How curious. Where high reliability facilities need effective protection, plug-in protectors are not installed. Less money spent using a 'whole house' protector with proper earthing. Also superior protection. Plug-in protextors cannot do what Bud's citation says a protector must do
$3000+ of Bud's protectors are defined by the NIST as useless. However one effective protector *diverts* surge energy harmlessly to earth. An effective protector has that low impedance connection to single point earth ground. Ineffective plug-in protectors - oh - its numeric specs don't even claim protection. No wonder Bud refuses to provide any manufacturer specs for protection. None exist.
Page 42 Figure 8 - another example of damage because a protector was too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. Bud solution: buy more. As every responsible source says including IEEE and NIST: a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Why do cable companies recommend removing that plug-in protector? Even the cable (properly installed) is earthed. A surge earthed before entering the building will not earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through any TVs. Damage on Page 42 Figure 8 averted and without any plug-in protectors..
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required