w_tom wrote:
On Mar 29, 8:53 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Look for the ones that guarantee to protect attached loads.
The guaranteed is so chock full of exceptions as to not be honored.
One APC guarantee even say protectors also from any other manufacturer
void the guarantee. This has been demosntrated by testimoney
elsewhere and repeatedly.
The only testimony provided by w_ was someone who didn’t connect a CATV
connection through a suppressor. All wires must including power and CATV
have to connect through a suppressor to provide protection. Denial was
justified. But w_ cant figure out how plug-in suppressors work.
Protectors, including ones that Bud recommends, use MOVs. When
typically undersized, then the naive think a protector did something.
Under sized is a red herring. Suppressors are readily available with
very high ratings.
When
undersized, sometimes these scary pictures occur:
The undersized red herring #2. And lacking any technical arguments w_
uses pathetic scare tactics again.
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm
Ho-hum. Repeating:
For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
"some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised
US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as
a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998.”
None of these links indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL
labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with
suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors
shouldn't be used. The links do give info on how to use plug-in suppressors.
Notice why Bud posts incessently? Plug-in protectors
are so grossly profitable that promoting myths is essential - customer
is only a mark.
I only post to counter w_'s bulllcrap.
And I can only quite w_ - "It is an old political trick. When facts
cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."
Bud forgets to mention:
Martzloff also says the adjacent plug-in protector can even contribute
to appliance damage. Conclusion from that Martzloff IEEE paper:
Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.
w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document:
“Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer.”
A “surge reference equalizer” is the multiport plug-in surge suppressor
discussed elsewhere in this thread and described in both the IEEE and
NIST guides.
And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug–in
suppressors are effective.
But if undersized
- if it only works once, then people such as HeyBub will promote junk
science myths.
Undersized red herring #3.
Protection is defined by its earthing.
Statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide describes
plug-in suppressors as working primarily by clamping the voltage on all
wires to the common ground at the suppressor. But that violates w_’s
religious belief in earthing. To protect his religious beliefs w_
distorts, misquotes and tries to discredit conflicting information.
Bud claimed a protector absorbs the surge. Reality - 500 joule
protector shunts maybe 5,000 or 10,000 joule surges elsewhere and
remains functional. They don't protect by absorbing. They shunt.
w_ is an idiot. I said “MOVs don’t protect by absorbing energy, but
they absorb energy in the process of protecting.”
Joules measures the life expectancy of a protector. It says little
about how much energy is shunted elswhere. Like high tension power
wires, the MOV conducts current elsewhere as long as that current is
not too great or too long. Something new from Bud: he is finally
admitting this.
w_ just claimed I said protectors absorb the surge. Now I said they
don’t. w_ is an idiot. I have never said protectors protect by
absorbing energy. But with no technical arguments w_ must misquote and
discredit.
Bud hopes you don't read and comprehend all 62 pages in his
citation. Visit Adobe page 42 (paper page 33) in Bud's citation:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf
Figure 8 is a TV damaged by 8000 volts because the MOVs (a power strip
protector or UPS) were too close to appliances and too far from
eathing.
I do hope people will read and comprehend it. It is a description of how
a multiport plug-in surge suppressor works. Because it violates his
religious belief in earthing w_ can’t comprehend it. The IEEE guide, as
well as the NIST guide, says plug-in suppressors are effective.
Protectors use MOVs. Protectors promoted only for higher profits
are undersized
The red herring again #4
As Bud now admits, a protector degrades when
its voltage changes by 10%.
Yet another stupidity. I have always said degrading is a continuous
process with end of life defined as 10% voltage change.
A protector does what? Even the IEEE says what is THE protection -
earth ground:
IEEE Green Book (Standard 142) 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :
IEEE Red Book (Standard 141):
Repeating:
“You have to be really stupid to say the IEEE would release a guide to
the general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards. And the
IEEE guide, pdf page 4, makes it absolutely clear that the IEEE guide
has been peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE. But w_ must
deny the obvious to protect his religious belief in earthing.”
And multiport plug-in surge suppressors are a surge protection device in
the IEEE Emerald Book "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment".
Why ground? Because earth is the protection. Effective protector
shunts (diverts, clamps, connects) a surge to earth. A protector does
not stop what 3 miles of sky could not. And yet that is what a plug-
in protector, without earthing, must do ... in direct violation of an
IEEE recommendation.
As the IEEE guide explains to anyone who can think, plug–in suppressors
work primarily by clamping not earthing or stopping. The IEEE guide says
plug–in suppressors are effective.
No earth ground means no effective protection.
Statement of religious belief in earthing #3.
Earthing - not the protector - is protection.
Statement of religious belief in earthing #4.
as noted above by
Martzloff, IEEE, and MOV manufacturer datasheets.
MOV manufacturer datasheets describe MOVs - they don’t talk about earthing.
Martzloff (paper above and NIST guide) and the IEEE (guide and Emerald
book) say plug-in suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_
can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have are misquotes, distortions and w_’s opinions
based religious beliefs.
--
bud--