w_tom wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:36 pm, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:
He consistently ignores the fact that clamping does not assume that
ground is always the lowest potential, nor that clamping does not
necessarily require earthing to be effective. MOVs just dump
current when their clamping voltage is exceeded. They require a
voltage difference, not an earth ground. Earthing is important, but
it is not the whole story. He simply does not tell the whole story and
ignores a great deal of context.
Same was the solution to Orange County facilities in FL. They did
not install plug-in protectors. They needed the problem solved. That
means upgrading the earthing so that protectors shunt (clamp) surge
current to earth:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
Its w_’s tower antenna fetish. If you plan on erecting a 280 foot
lightning rod (aka. tower antenna)in your yard and connecting it to
equipment in your house this may be relevant.
Why does the telco also not use those plug-in protectors?
Let me see - why wouldn’t the telco use a plug-in suppressor on a high
amp hard wired switch with thousands of signal wires that would have to
go through a multiport suppressor?
An MOV shunts surge currents when voltage to earth is exceeded - as
posted. If that earthing connection is too long or if earthing is not
sufficient, then surge currents will find other destructive paths.
As Leonard said in the quote above, MOVs clamp the voltage across them -
they don’t care if earth is involved. The IEEE guide says plug–in
suppressors do not work primarily by earthing and that earthing occurs
elsewhere in the system as the electrical codes intended. In the example
in the guide, earthing is primarily by the ground wire from CATV entry
block to power service.
And in the example in the IEEE guide, a service panel suppressor would
have provided *NO* protection.
But we
know some of the most expensive solutions that don't even claim to
earth destructive surges are plug-in (point of use) products promoted
by Bud.
I promote only accurate information as opposed to the drivel from w_.
Find out what works and use what is appropriate. Read the sources. The
IEEE guide recognizes earthing, single point ground, service panel
suppressor and plug-in suppressors as effective protection components.
Bud routinely forgets to mention other facts. It is no accident
that the very first point in Martzloff's conclusions in his 1996 paper
said:
w_ routinely forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994
(not 1996) 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 [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors work.
As usual w_ uses selective editing to try to make sources say the
opposite of what they actually say. Pathetic what w_ will do to protect
his religious belief in earthing.
Do we install $25 and $100 protectors on dishwasher, bugler alarm,
smoke detector, furnace, and bathroom GFCIs? These are even more
important than a TV - essential to human life. What protects them?
Bud recommends more plug-in protectors.
I don’t recommend - I provide accurate information against w_’s
disinformation. As noted previously, the NIST guide indicates computer
with modem, and TV related equipment with CATV are most often damaged by
surges. The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide(a computer
and TV/entertainment equipment)use plug-in suppressors. Protection is
always a trade-off of value of equipment protected, risk and cost of
protection.
As always, w_ has no links to a source that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.
But both the NIST and IEEE guides say they are effective.
Never explained by w_:
- 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud--