On Nov 13, 3:29 am, w_tom wrote:
On Nov 12, 9:44 am, wrote:
The typical surge arriving at an electronic appliance in your house is
not a direct full lightening strike, so this has zero applicability.
...
I'll compare my engineering and technology qualifications against
you're any day, smart guy.
What happens when lightning strikes wires highest on utility poles?
A direct strike to household appliances similar in nature to a direct
lightning strike on a commercial broadcast station, emergency response
center, or telephone CO. Why is an appliance damaged? A direct
strike finds earth ground, destructively, through that appliance. To
lightning, those utility wires connect to your appliances just like an
antenna to a radio station. What do those facilities install -
religiously - for no surge damage? Better earth grounds and no plug-
in protectors. What is the homeowner's solution? Same - but for so
little money.
What happens when using a properly earthed 'whole house' protector?
A homeowner need not install $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protectors.
More absurdity. These numbers are off by an order of magnitude from
reality, just like most of the rest of your arguments.
Now the homeowner can save money and eliminate risk of these scary
pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html:
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol orhttp://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPP...
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
Yes, keep posting pics of the handful of scary pictures from the
hundreds of millions of surge protectors in use. I can post pics of
car wrecks. Does that mean that all cars are inherently unsafe and
you should not own one?
Let's see. The well proven solution costs tens of times less
money. It eliminates those scary pictures. It makes those grossly
overpriced plug-in protectors unnecessary. It does not earth a surge,
8000 volts destructively, through adjacent appliances; another
engineering fact on Page 42 Figure 8 that trader4 ignores or just does
not comprehend. Page 42 Figure 8 where a plug-in protector (no earth
ground connection) earths the surge destructively through a TV.
How about people living in a rental home? Or living in an apartment
building? Or a co-op? Where they can't put a whole house protector
in? According to you, what should they do? Answer that one please.
Trader4 still refuses to quote numeric specs that cite each type of
surge AND protection from that surge. Based upon technical facts
posted by trader4, he has no idea what different transients are. No
wonder he also associated MOVs with fuses. Manufacture specs are no
help. The manufacturer avoids admitting to surges it does not protect
from. So what are these various surges? Trader4 posts no
manufacturer specs because his knowledge is ... well, the manufacturer
will not even make those claims.
Bud already answered that one for you, pointing out that there are no
such numeric specs provided for the whole house surge suppressors
either, and that clearly doesn't bother you.
The 15 foot elephant is missing technical facts posted by trader4.
Somehow his denials of engineering and a belief in Bud half truths -
that is knowledge? Trader4 rationalizes "the pamphlet discussed a
plug-in protector; therefore it must protect from the typically
destructive surge". Trader4 - learn the technology. It also says that
earth ground is required to have protection. Why do you conveniently
ignore that part? Ignore that fact and you can claim the plug-in
protector does protect. It is called lying by ignoring the most
important fact. A plug-in protector can do something effective ... if
it has the earth ground that is does not have.
No, the 15ft elephant is that both the NIST and IEEE discuss home
surge protection, talk at length about plug-ins, say they can be used
effectively and safely and you continue to ignore it.
Here's the IEEE:
"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating
and
absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting
voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work
better than either one alone."
A plug-in protector will protect from one type of surge. A surge
made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances. But trader4
also denies that internal protection exists.
Again, making things up. Never said any such thing. I only said
that it makes no sense that you keep talking about the surge
protection contained in appliances/electronic gear and claim it is
effective. That built-in protection is very similar in concept and
works under the same limitations as a plug-in, ie no close by earth
ground. Or do your appliances come with an earth ground?
He even denies standards
such as IEC1000. He denies because he does not possess necessary
technical knowledge. Trader4 - it is a standard for the technically
informed. I don't expect you to understand it. All you need
understand is that protection inside appliances even makes indirect
surges irrelevant. Protection that may be overwhelmed by the
destructive surge - ie a direct lightning strike to utility wires. No
plug-in protector claims to provide that protection.
Again, another blatant lie. Never denied any such thing.
Trader4 ignores what responsible engineers do routine for real world
protection. As in every telco switching center, the protector is
close to earth ground, AND up to 50 meters distant from electronics.
Separation between electronics and protector is part of the
protection. Apparently trader4 still does not even grasp the
significance of wire impedance as stated in "Protecting Electrical
Devices from Lightning Transients" at:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807127
So, I guess the IEEE and NIST recommendations were written and
reviewed by irresponsible engineers. Let's take a look at the
irresponsible, unqualified engineers that wrote the IEEE document that
says plug-ins work. I've posted the authors credentials below.
Hmmm, one of them is Chief Engineer at Cutler-Hammer. Another was
manager of lightning protector development at Bell Labs. You keep
spewing about how companies that make whole house suppressors and the
phone company know so much more about surge protection than anyone
else. And these engineers talk at length about using plug-ins, show
scenarios using them, and say:
"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating
and
absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting
voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work
better than either one alone."
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
Richard L. Cohen (Editor, Author) is a Consultant for
lightning and surge protection. He was Vice President of
Engineering at Panamax, Incorporated. Prior to joining
Panamax, he was the manager for lightning protector
development at Bell Laboratories. He started and was Chair of
the IEEE Surge Protection Device Working Group 3.6.10, for
multi-port surge protector standards, and is a member of the
UL Standards Technical Panels for low-voltage AC protectors
and lightning protection systems. Dr. Cohen is a Senior
Member of the IEEE, and a Fellow of the American Physical Society and
of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. He holds a B.S., M.S., and
Ph.D. in Physics,
and has seven patents, with four more applications pending. He has
authored over 200
research papers and reviews.
Doug Dorr (Author) is Director of Technology
Development at EPRI Solutions, Inc. He has been involved in
power quality research and surge protective device testing for
the past 14 years. He is the Vice Chair of the IEEE Surge
Protective Devices Main Committee and also Chair of the
Low-Voltage AC Surge Protective Device Working Group.
Mr. Dorr has been involved in development of more than a
dozen standards and currently chairs the 2005 revision to the
IEEE Emerald Book, an "IEEE Recommended Practice on
Power and Grounding Electronic Equipment". He is a Senior Member of
the IEEE, and
received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering, with electrical
concentration, from
the Indiana Institute of Technology in Fort Wayne, Indiana
James Funke (Associate Editor, Author) is Chief
Engineer of Eaton's Cutler-Hammer business unit. He was
previously Chief Engineer for Tycor International. He has
specialized in surge protection research throughout his career.
He is Chair of the IEC SC37A Technical Advisory Group
reporting to the Standards Council of Canada. He is also the
Chair of the CSA committee writing safety standards for
SPDs, and actively participates on Surge Protection
committees with NEMA and UL. Mr. Funke is contributing to
several IEEE SPD Committee working groups on surge protection, and has
received two
Working Group awards for contributions to surge protection standards.
He holds seven
surge protection patents, with three more applications pending. He is
an IEEE Senior
Member and has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
(1988) and a
Masters of Business Administration (2004).
Chuck Jensen (Author) is Senior Engineer with Duke
Power Company. He serves as a Power Quality Specialist,
providing consulting engineering services to customers of the
utility, and specifies and designs surge protection systems. He
is a Member of the IEEE, serving on several IEEE SPD
Committee working groups. Mr. Jensen also serves on the UL
Standards Technical Panel for Surge Protective Devices, STP
1449, and is a Registered Professional Engineer in the states
of North Carolina and South Carolina. He has a Bachelor of
Science degree in Electrical Engineering (1984).
S. Frank Waterer (Author) is a Staff Engineer at
Schneider Electric. He provides consulting engineering
services to commercial and industrial customers about power
distribution systems, power equipment applications,
grounding systems, protective relaying, ground fault
protection, and surge protection. He is a Member of IEEE and
is the Secretary of IEEE/SPDC. Mr. Waterer is a member of
numerous IEEE, UL, NEMA, and ANSI working groups and
technical committees relating to grounding and surge
protection. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
Engineering (1980).
Trader4, is simple math for wire impedance too complex? Did you
understand why EE Times discusses low wire impedance? Effective
protection means the surge must be earthed by low impedance
connections. That mean the 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection
provide by 'whole house' protectors AND a connection not available on
plug-in protectors. Could they be blunter? Effective protection is
about making a low impedance connection to earth. Effective
protection is not some protector absorbing surges as trader4 claims;
as he learned from retail salesman.
I'm sure you took whatever EE Times had to say completely out of
context or made things up, just like you do here, claiming I said
things that I never did. But, I think it is quite amusing that you
would resort to EE Times, which is basicly a newspaper, while
dismissing the 15ft elephant documents from IEEE, NIST, etc.
. Notice engineers (ie the engineer at WXIA) don't post insults to
prove effective protection. Where do they discuss plug-in
protectors? They don't. They are discussing protection that
works ... and that means earthing.
Trader4 - remember earthing - the 15 foot elephant you routinely
ignore because, well, you even deny damage comes from direct lightning
strikes.
Another lie. Never said any such thing.
Meanwhile effective protection from direct lightning strikes
even makes irrelevant trader4's indirect strikes (that are also made
irrelevant by protection inside appliances).
Why does trader4 invent damage from indirect strikes?
Another lie, didn't state that either.
The plug-in
protector is typically too grossly undersized (and no earthing) to
address direct strike damage. So he invents this straw man - the
indirect strike.
Another lie, I never even used the term indirect strike.
The informed homeowner ignores trader4 since his only prove come
from remarks of disparagement.
Now, after all the disparaging crap you've spewed, this one is real
special. But homeowners can decide who's advice is right and do what
they want after they read the NIST and IEEE recommendations:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
Do what every responsible
professional recommends. ARRL, US Air Force, every telephone company,
Telcordia, Polyphaser - an industry benchmark, IEEE green, emerald,
and red book (Bud conveniently forgets all those IEEE standards demand
earthing for protection), British Standard 6651, every commercial
broadcasting engineer, all electric companies, rocket launch
facilities, FAA communication towers, ... anyone who cannot have
damage from surges requires earthing for protection. Every high
reliability facility does not use plug-in protectors. They ignore
these trader4 myths. Even Ben Franklin demonstrated the concept in
1752. What provided protection for a church steeple? The connection
to and quality of earthing.
Trader4's denies it.
Another lie.
Every responsible source cites earthing as
essential. Earthing is the one system component that must always
exist for protection. Some protector systems don't even use
protectors. But still have that earth ground. From IEEE Standards
that trader4 repeatedly ignores and Bud intentionally misrepresents
(but then profits are at risk):
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.
From Bud's NIST citation:
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
From an industry professional:
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such strikes
is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a strike,
it was due to a strike on the power company's lines knocking
*them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
low ohm DC path.
From the front page article in EE Times:
Providing a flow path for the lightning current is central to
effective lightning protection.
From another industry professional:
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to
ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning
protection device grounds the incoming signal connection
point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting
the threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance
(impedance) to ground where it is absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of
switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow
dissipation of the surge energy.
From IEEE Emerald Book which Bud routinely misrepresents:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...
Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement
may result in hazardous potential being developed between
the telephone (data) equipment and other grounded items
that personnel may be near or might simultaneously contact.
IEEE Green Book (Standard 142):
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5%
Again, you need to look at the whole picture. No where in any of the
above does it say that plug-ins don't provide any protection or can't
be used as part of a home protection strategy. Nor does it say they
are a fire hazhard. The balanced view for the homeowner regarding
surge protection is provided by highly credible engineers from IEEE
and NIST.
There is one curious note about the last paragraph though. You dis-
proved another one of your rants that hasn;t surfaced for a while.
You've ranted on in the past about how if there is any lightning
damage it's a human fault, because a properly designed system offers
100% protection. Clearly the last source refutes that.