Your ignorance knows no bounds, and you are too stupid to stop parading it before the world.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm Sporadic E is the Earth\'s aluminum foil beanie for the \'global warming\' sheep.
Your lies know no bounds, as well.
--
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account:
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming' sheep.
. Ho hum ?the lie repeated a la Goebbels (at least the 4th time). Specs were provided long ago. .
. And the required religious mantra.
But still no 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?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
-- bud--
-- A classic case of the moron calling the genius stupid because the moron can\'t understand what the genius is talking about. Read, for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varistor Then, if you have any questions come back and ask them politely and maybe someone will help you out.
Bud is a sales promoter for plug-in protectors. He will even post insult to protect those obscene profit margins on $3 power strips with some ten cent parts. Bud's citations show how a plug-in protector may even earth a surge 8000 volts destrutively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. Bud's other citatoin is quite blunt about unearth protectors:
Bud says no ground is necessary. Surge energy will magically disappear with his miracle plug-in protector.
Where does Bud or Michael Terrell answer the OP's question? Neither do. Their proof is in insult and lies. The informed consumer earths only one 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Superior solution also required by the OP also costs tens or 100 times less money. Bud must reply because obscene profits are at risk. The informed consumer buys that effective 'whole house' protectors from responsible companies such as Intermatic, Keison, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Levition, Siemens, or GE. Protectors that make a short earth ground connection.
Where does that surge energy get dissipated? Bud and Michael claim that energy will magically disappear. Responsible citations all state that surge energy must be dissipiated in earth.
Only one spec matters. Manufacturer numbers for protection from each type of surge. Bud refused to provide those numbers. No plug-in protector claims effective protection. So Bud posts more insults incessently and never answers the OP's question.
w_tom Inscribed thus:
W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable !
--
Best Reagrds:
Baron.
You don't contribute anything technical. You don't ask any technical questions. You only post insults. Why then do you keep posting?
Boring? These principles have not changed in 100 years. Destructive surges still seek earth ground as 100 years ago. Protection has always been about diverting so that surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly in earth - as ham radio operators demonstrated
80 years ago. But somehow a grossly overpriced protector will protect by violating these well proven principles? Hardly.Meanwhile, the OP asked about protection using only two wire receptacles. Where do you offer the OP a solution? A solution that requires no house rewiring and that is superior to any plug-in protector was provided. Where is your solution?
You don't contribute anything technical. You don't ask any technical questions. You only post insults. Why then do you keep posting?
Boring? These principles have not changed in 100 years. Destructive surges still seek earth ground as 100 years ago. Protection has always been about diverting so that surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly in earth - as ham radio operators demonstrated
80 years ago. But somehow a grossly overpriced protector will protect by violating these well proven principles? Hardly.Meanwhile, the OP asked about protection using only two wire receptacles. Where do you offer the OP a solution? A solution that requires no house rewiring and that is superior to any plug-in protector was provided. Where is your solution?
The same post twice !
Well you didn't get the gentle hints !
Principles may not have changed ! But techniques have !
I thought that was lightening !
Are all energy surges due to lightening ?
For the OP case is there a superior solution ?
To be honest I don't know why I am wasting my time and bandwidth encouraging you !
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
If techniques have changed, then show me. Where is this technique that makes the principles irrelevant? Yes, we have protector that are smaller, last longer, and can earth more direct lightning strikes without damage. But the 100 year old principles remain same. A protector still must earth that surge energy AND the protector must remain functional even after direct lightning strikes.
Are all surges due to lightning? Of course not. But any protection 'system' must earth direct lightning strikes and remain functional. Another surge can be created by utility switching. A 'whole house' system also makes that all other trivial surges irrelevant. One protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Even with 100 plug-in protectors - one for every smoke detector, dishwasher, clock radio, etc - that same protection cannot be achieved.
Have techniques changed? Yes. Some manufacturers have discovered a profit 'gold mine' selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for $25 or $150. Such protectors violate surge protection principles. No problem. They are so profitable AND so many consumers believe the myths.
From the IEEE Green Book entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' :
How do plug-in protectors get around such numbers? Plug-in protectors make no numeric protection claims. Read it yourself. Where does that plug-in protector list protection from each type of surge in numeric specs? It does not. A complete solution - the plug- in protector - does not even claim any protection? Of course not. Why bother. Techniques have changed. Profits now trump protection - when not using effective protectors.
Why does your telco switching center, that may suffer 100 surges during every thunderstorm, not waste money on plug-in protectors? Why do all telco facilities use 'whole house' protectors and earthing? Rather obvious. Telco need effective protection. They don't have money to waste on ineffective, and obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors.
Because their power supplies don't plug in. They rare relay rack sized, and hardwired to a circuit breaker. Have you ever been in a CO? Or a Telco boneyard? You need a forklift to move most of their power supplies.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm Sporadic E is the Earth\'s aluminum foil beanie for the \'global warming\' sheep.
--- Not true.
I posted, earlier, links to manufacturers who _did_ rate their protectors in terms of capability of energy absorption, but you seem to have ignored that in your relentless quest for vain infallibility.
---
--- I'd like to say this kindly, since this is sci.electronics.basics but, in view of your earlier posts I can't.
Basically, you're an idiot who has latched onto something he doesn't understand, but thinks he does, and wants to challenge those of us who do to a joust.
You don't have the skills to win but, I suggest that if you're serious, and really think you can't be unhorsed you refer back to my earlier post where I interposed the MOV between the wire impedances from hot to the MOV and from the MOV to neutral.
---
--- Again, apples and oranges.
JF
Had John learned how protectors work: it is a shunt mode protector. They don't work by absorbing surges as John only assumes. Joules in numeric specs do not make any claim for protection. What does more joules mean? More joules means a protector absorbs even less surge energy. More joules does not define protection - as John Fields immediately assumes. No plug-in protector lists protection from each type of surge. Plug-in protectors cannot protect from the typically destructive surge.
John foolishly assumes more joules means more energy absorbed. But shunt mode protectors don't protect by absorbing the surge. As so many cited professional sources say: it works by ***diverting*** energy into earth where energy is harmlessly dissipated. From the NIST:
John, you posted no technical facts. You post insults due to insufficient technical knowledge. . John even confused characteristic impedance with wire impedance. A mistake that a trained engineer would never make.
John - joules is a measure of how MOVs conduct. A wire is rated in amperes. Same conducting abilities for MOVs are measured in joules.
Facts that John does not even dispute: whereas a 100 joule MOV may absorb 100 joules during a 2000 amp surge; a 1000 joule MOV may absorb only 75 joules during the same 2000 amp surge. Better MOV (higher joules) means the MOV absorbs even less energy. Why? Better protection means even more energy is *diverted* into earth. Earth is where tens or thousands of times more energy gets dissipated - harmlessly.
John still did not understand MOV V-I charts. John's technical proof is using the word 'idiot'. Just another indication of insufficient electrical training. That same word also proved Saddam had Wads.
John Fields saw a joules numbers. So he immediately assumed MOVs protect by absorbing all of a surge - even though MOV datasheets and E=3DIR says otherwise.
John - if you had EE training, then you would have never confused characteristic impedance with wire impedance. You would have seen the obvious - a larger joule MOV absorbs even less energy. A trained engineer would understand this. Instead you post insults.
Whereas a 100 joule MOV may absorb 100 joules during a 2000 amp surge; a large 1000 joule MOV would only absorb 75 joules. Better protectors absorb even less energy - a direct contradiction to what John Fields has assumed. Best protectors *divert* even more energy dissipated in earth. Better protectors have better earthing because earth (not a protector) provides the protection - absorbs surge energy.
So where is that plug-in protector numeric spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge? John Fields does not provide what does not exist. John has foolishly assumed more joules define protection. Monster Cable loves customers like John.
k
Who said anything about power supplies? Why do you assume? Telcos have tens of thousands of overhead wires entering the building to connect directly to a switching computer. Telco switching centers suffer about 100 surges during every storm. So they disconnect all incoming wires during every thunderstorm? Of course not. Telcos must never suffer damage. Telcos use no obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors. Instead, telcos install a protector up to 50 meters distant from electronics AND as close as possible to earth ground. What makes telco protectors effective? That short connection to earth ground.
Telco also installs the equivalent solution on all subscriber lines where their wires meter household wires. Again, what makes that protector effective? Did you provide a sufficient single point earth ground?
Apparently you have not learned how telco switching centers are designed. Any wire not earthed - either directly or through a protector - means surge energy is permitted inside the building. Any surge inside a building means surges can seek earth ground destructively via electronics. Protection is always about *diverting* energy into earth; keep surge currents outside the facility. That means ground connections measured in feet - shorter if possible.
No plug-in protector claims protection from typically destructive surges. Obviously. No earth ground means no effective protection. A protector does not provide protection. A protector is what *diverts* surge energy into what provides protection - earth ground. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So telcos use properly earthed protectors - do not waste money on obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors.
Same surge can damage electronics in commercial broadcasting stations, telco switching centers, airports, or homes. Now that homes have electronics, protection routinely installed in other facilities is now also required in homes. Protector that costs maybe $1 per protected appliance. A less expensive solution is one 'whole house' protector AND earthing upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC requirements. Less expensive solution also is the superior solution. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why telcos use earthed protectors - don't waste money on plug-in protectors.
Where else do you use a plug in protector, like the ones you keep condemning?
I don't assume. I've seen the equipment, and the protection for the Telco equipment. in fact, I've posted links to photos that clearly show MOV surge protection built into Telco equipment, but you are too stupid to see them for what they are. FYI, telco proctors are not plug in, they are built into 66 style blocks, and other conventional telco hardware so they can be installed in place of existing termination.
I haven't seen more than a couple temporary overhead telephone cable in a long, long time. Most of it is fiber optic around here, and is only copper for a mile or less.
_Wacko_, ignorance can be cured by education, but your 'stupid' is forever. Not only are you stupid, you are extremely proud of how bleeding stupid you present yourself.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm Sporadic E is the Earth\'s aluminum foil beanie for the \'global warming\' sheep.
Its like an echo !
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
-- What you\'re doing is confusing the MOV\'s ratings with their resistance at a particular current. As I noted earlier, and which you conveniently failed to address, is that an MOV rated higher in energy absorption capability than another will have a lower resistance for the same current through it because of its larger volume of conductive material. That larger volume is what gives it a higher energy rating in that it will take more energy to heat it to destruction, which is what this is all about.
It's also called electricity. It did not change because some retail store salesman taught you something different. For 100 years - surge energy must be dissipated in earth. No earth ground connection is why plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide that protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - where that surge energy must be dissipated and where surge currents must go to stay out of the building.
When damage is not an option, the 'whole house' protector - not plug- in protectors - are installed AND earthing is upgraded. A superior solution that also costs less money.
Where does Baron post a technical fact that disputes this? Baron - attacking the messenger is not science. Spin and insults never created surge protection. Where does Baron answer the OP's question?
Protection for appliances inside a house of two wire receptacles is to upgrade the building's earth ground, install one 'whole house' protector, not upgrade interior wiring, and not waste money on plug-in protectors. Money wasted on plug-in protectors is better spent on upgrading a single point earth ground to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC requirements.
They don't waste money, because the protection equipment works:
The link is to the EATON Type 66 Punchdown block-mounted, secondary, telephone or data-line overvoltage/current surge protection devices. which would qualify as a plugin surge protector used by the telcos for the subscriber lines.
-- http://improve-usenet.org/index.html If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm Sporadic E is the Earth\'s aluminum foil beanie for the \'global warming\' sheep.
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.