Surge Protectors

We used to test our radios with 117vac on the antenna terminals. While not a required test, it happened often enough that it was worth testing and protecting. The AC plug to PL-259 test cable on my cable rack generated quite a few odd questions.

Neon lamps, MOV's, back to back diodes, PIN diodes, and such are generally a bad idea in high RF environments. Any non-linear device between the antenna and the RF amp is going to act like a mixer and create the dreaded intermodulation products. MOV's and diodes are particularly bad because they start to slightly conduct at nearly zero voltage, and increase exponentially with increasing signal. The MOV also has 100-1000pf of unstable and unpredictable capacitance, which is not a good thing on the antenna input. The closest approximation of an ideal protection device are the one-time gas filled spark gaps used in lightning protectors. No conduction at all until they arc over. Then, they're dead.

Question: What's the peak to peak output voltage of a 50 watt transmitter into 50 ohms? Answer: V = 2.828 * 50^2 / 50 = 141 volts p-p Now, do you REALLY want a device that conducts at 65 volts across the xmitter antenna terminals?

I actually tried a varistor across the antenna terminals of an HF 150w PEP xmitter and confirmed the big bang theory.

Hint: Things work differently at 60Hz than at RF frequencies.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

ors.

so.

sion

d

My news reader sees a problem in these postings .

Mark Waller wrote an article for Byte. I have his book PC Power Protection from 1988. Great reading. I should also have that mag article if anybody is interested. I should look it up.

From worrying too much about protection, Mark is now a Family Therapist.

greg

Bud promotes plug-in protectors. It is his job. Either that protector connects energy harmlessly to earth. Energy absorbed without damage. Or energy is inside the building - bud's IEEE guide Page 42 Figure 8 - hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

8000 volts destructively through the TV because bud's miracle protector cannot absorb destructive surges.

bud's NIST citation also describes bud's "profit center" protectors:

by diverting the

grounding is

No earth ground (bud's high profit protectors) means no effective protection. Even the NIST says so. All of bud's citations say that.

Meanwhile IEEE Standards (the Red Book) - where the IEEE makes all recommendations - state what is always necessary for surge protection

- and what bud denies:

interception of lightning produced

shapes.

Or IEEE Emerald Book:

exist among the

hazardous potential being

personnel may

Protection is always about where energy dissipates. That means an effective protector connects short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground. But somehow bud's protectors magically make energy just disappear? It is what he is paid to promote. It is why he gets angry. Reality would harm profits.

Surge protection means energy dissipates harmlessly in earth; outside the building. A protector without that dedicated and short connection to earth does not claim protection in its numeric specs - as bud tacitly admits. So bud's protector magically makes that energy disappear? That is also what bud tacitly claims.

Assuming they are MOV based, read MOV datasheets to learn how MOVs work and obtain relevenant numbers for the test. Perform a 1 milliamp test to confirm these numbers on that protector. This test is described in some manufacturer application notes.

The test only confirms the protector can conduct. Does not say anything about what makes a protector effective - the earth ground and how it connects to earth. The best surge protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.

westom just continues to repeat the same lies - a la Goebbels.

And the same misrepresentations - a la religious fanaticism. All the sources westom uses, including even his favorite manufacturers, say plug-in suppressors are effective.

In particular, the IEEE and NIST surge guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective. Links have been provided to these reliable sources.

There are 259,615,938 other web sites, including 23,843,032 by lunatics, and westom can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Also still missing - answers to 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?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42?

- 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"?

- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?

- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

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

- Why don?t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

Why can't you answer simple questions westom????

--
bud--

IEEE 587 and UL 1449 Talks of 3-6KV and 500 amps typical test produces eventual failure.

greg

Here is the article.

If its not clear, the first thing a great surpressor must have, is an isolation transformer.

greg

Been awhile since I looked inside, I'll have to open 'em back up and see what numbers are on them (if any, I can't remember).

Makes sense, I'll confirm that the service entrance ground is in good condition, too.

Thanks, Mike

An honest bud would simply post numeric specs to prove what he claims. He cannot. No plug-in protector claims that protection from each type of surge. bud is a promoter. He again posts insults because his protectors do not claim protection in numeric specs. Honesty is not bud.

What do his citations show? Page 42 Figure 8. A protector too far from earth ground and too close to TVs earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through that TV. IEEE brochure Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates why high profit plug-in protectors do not even claim protection in numeric specs. Bud=92s job is to lie and insult so that you will ignore what he cannot provide - effective protection.

Where are those numeric specs that claim surge protection? bud promotes these things =96 and still cannot find those numeric specs.

An honest westom would admit that specs have been provided often in other threads, and through a link in this thread. And also by other people. Always ignored.

An honest westom would admit that both the IEEE and NIST surge guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

An honest westom would not try to make sources say the opposite of what they actually say.

An honest westom would admit he can't find another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

An honest westom could answer 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?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42?

- 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"?

- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?

- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

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

- Why don?t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

Why don't you ever answer questions westom???

--
bud--

I finally hooked up a suppressor to the main box. I ordered the item from Drillspot, and received it from GRAINGER !

I also fooled around with my lightning arrestors on the deck outside. I want to keep surge protector also in the separate garage. I also need to put something in my LED lighting string around the house. That would be expensive to replace and difficult.

I find 90 volt gas discharge tubes. I could probably use a lower voltage device. I don't know what else would be self resetting.

greg