On May 5, 1:44*am, wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:| wrote:

| In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet wrote:| | wrote in message

| ...
| | In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar wrote:
| |
| |
| | The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping. *The surge will
| | take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
| | MOVs. *In general, about 50% will go each way. *That can vary at higher
| | frequencies.
| |
| | Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
| | impedance of each direction? *When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
| | very low impedance.
|
| There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
| the impedance. *It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
| itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
| there.
|
| Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
| theory.

Not understanding it is your loss.


I have to agree that this is Phantasy Physics. We're supposed to
believe that a surge reaching a MOV is going to split 50-50, with half
of it going to the MOV path and half moving on down the line,
reagrdless of the impedance of the two paths? That would render all
surge protection about 50% effective.




| Two sources directly contradict Phil.

What sources? *Your truncated out of context quotes?

| Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.

I don't care.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from *|
| * * * * Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| * * * * you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. * * * * *|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |