On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 8:56:56 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
A surge is connected to earth on a current path that remains on the outside of the plane - so no damage:
Similar to most of a lightning strike hitting a utility pole or the
service entrance mast, where it flashes over and most of the energy never
gets to the TV inside. What does get inside the airplane is clamped
just like a plug-in surge protector.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IRfbC0RHsY
trader_4 will ignore this as he always does.
Ignore it? Actually I've brought it up many times. In this latest case,
Mark brought it up. How is that airplane protected when you keep telling
us no protection is possible without a direct, short wire to ground?
trader_4 also did not comprehend Martzloff's paper.
It is what he does. Claim it agrees with his lies.
In Martzloff's own words:
"Plug-in Surge Protectors
This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."
Meanwhile, Martzloff was quite blunt about 'point of connection' protectors even causing damage.
In Martzloff's own words:
"Plug-in Surge Protectors
This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."
Martzloff demonstrates how destructive voltages can "occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." That same damage was observed by engineers even long before Martzloff wrote his paper. But then we engineers did this stuff. trader_4 never did.
He never posts specification numbers or other relevant sources. He even and intentionally misrepresented what both Martzloff and the IEEE brochure say. As if Figure 8 does not show a 'point of connection' protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. Can the IEEE make Martzloff's point any clearer?
Fig 8 actually clearly shows a house with two TVs getting hit by a surge.
TV1 has a plug-in surge protector and is undamaged. TV2 has no plug-in
surge protector and is damaged. They conclude by saying that to protect TV2,
a second plug-in surge protector is required.
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
Fig 8 is on page 33. Everyone can look and read for themselves.
I never said plug-in protectors are useless.
Right, you said they are worse than useless, because according to you
they actually cause damage, which you do again in this post, later on.
trader_4 reads what he wants to see - not what was said. He has a problem
with integrity.
No problems here. I gave you the IEEE guide that clearly endorses using
plug-in surge protectors. They show diagrams of them being used. They
show one TV that has one being protected from a surge, while TV2 that doesn't
have a plug-in surge protector is damaged. They state that "to protect TV2
another plug-in surge protector is required". Only a liar with no integrity
would take that diagram and try to say that the IEEE is actually showing
the plug-in at TV1 damaging TV2.
I also gave you Martzloff, in his own words, from a guide on surge
protection he wrote for NIST. Just the facts.
A plug-in protector only does what it claims to do. It only claims to protect from a completely different type of surge that typically does not do equipment damage. When adjacent to equipment, it must either block or absorb a surge. It is only useless doing what it does not claim to do - and what trader_4 insists it will do. It only does what it claims to do.
But again, I have said what trader_4 will intentionally misrepresent.
Protector numbers only claim to block or absorb tiny surges. And only one type of surge. Not the other type that typically causes damage. All reasons why a plug-in protector, without a 'whole house' protector, is near zero (ineffective) protection.
'Whole house' protector is necessary for the plug-in protector to do something useful. Plug-in protector creates problems such as making damage easier and fire.
Then why does Martzloff, in the surge guide say:
"Plug-in Surge Protectors
This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."
Trader_4 will ignore another problem - fire. Otherwise he must admit to serious shortcomings in his denials. He never did this stuff. So he intentionally misrepresents airplane protection, Martzloff and IEEE brochure citations. and what I said. Integrity and honesty are not his strongest assets..
Any protector inside HVAC equipment needs every typically destructive surge earthed - either by a 'whole house' solution or by a lightning rod.
Further proof that you're the village idiot. A lightning rod is going
to do absolutely zero when the surge hits the utility wires, service
cable, etc.