Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I
have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point of use (outlet). The two candiidates a Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if surge is sensed to be more than 2ms Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company. I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know. Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out there that you don't which is an good. I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either. Thanks, Jay |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
Jay1028 wrote: I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. What kind of 'surge' ? Graham |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 13, 5:52 pm, Jay1028 wrote:
I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point of use (outlet). The two candiidates a Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if surge is sensed to be more than 2ms Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company. I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know. Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out there that you don't which is an good. I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either. Thanks, Jay Panamax and Leviton devices are good surge protectors. Do not believe everything you read about some device shutting off the surge in 2ms. If you are talking about a lightning strike close by then NO surge suppressor will completely elimate the problem 100% of the time. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at 10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run. I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to say about the cable installation. Jay |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
Jay1028 wrote:
I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at 10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run. I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to say about the cable installation. Jay Were those ground rods tested for ground resistance? How deep are they, and what part of the state are you in? There are a lot of different soil conditions in different parts of Florida. We had to have 85 feet of ground rod driven before we passed the test in northern Lake County about 20 years ago. It was about three feet short of length of the well pipe. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
Rods are 8ft, 5/8" galvanized with bronze clamps.. I Live in
northeast Florida near Marineland. |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
Jay1028 wrote: I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power lines on the poles propogating into my home. 'Generated out on the power lines' ???? Graham |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Jay1028 wrote: I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at 10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run. I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to say about the cable installation. Were those ground rods tested for ground resistance? How deep are they, and what part of the state are you in? There are a lot of different soil conditions in different parts of Florida. We had to have 85 feet of ground rod driven before we passed the test in northern Lake County about 20 years ago. It was about three feet short of length of the well pipe. Fortunately in the UK, the power company supplies the ground connection. That saves a lot of such bother. Graham |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
Jay1028 wrote:
I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at 10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run. I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to say about the cable installation. Jay Just buy a small generator and run it with an electric motor. That will smooth out surges. -- Cockamamie Khomeini Leader of the known (Islamic) world. |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
copper cage your home, generate ur own power, no surges!
go all solar, go all wind, get some treadmills and put the kids/you to work if you must protect from power company "events" as they call them, then get uself an "event" monitoring system/meter/recorder. then when your appliances/other get toasted, deliver the power company a hefty bill for their replacement/repair along with a recording of the "event" on paper get a neighborhood group together to get a regional event monitor, then everyone can submit bills on a regular basis. if you need pure reliable energy, ask the electric utility company to provide u with special xmission lines right to your own house as special treatment or even better, dont use power (be 'green') :-D "Jay1028" wrote in message ... I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point of use (outlet). The two candiidates a Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if surge is sensed to be more than 2ms Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company. I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know. Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out there that you don't which is an good. I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either. Thanks, Jay |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 13, 10:45 pm, Jay1028 wrote:
Rods are 8ft, 5/8" galvanized with bronze clamps.. I Live in northeast Florida near Marineland. First, even effective surge protectors do not stop typically destructive surges. One that implies protection forgets to mention it protects from surges that typically don't damage - surges that don't overwhelm protection already in all appliances. Second, an effective protector acts like a switch; connects surges to earth. Surges that may be inside or outside the building. The surge that typically does damage is called lightning. We install effective protectors to earth lightning; divert to earth before that surge can enter a building. What determines the effectiveness of that 'whole house' protector? Quality of earthing and connection to earthing. What is the Panamax going to do? Do you believe it will divert a surge to the same earth ground? If a surge did not obtain earth ground via a 'whole house' protector, then why would it obtain the same earth ground path via a low quality path (from Panamax)? Just another reason why the Panamax does not discuss earthing and does not claim to protect from the type of surge that typically causes damage. Read its numeric specs. Notice the Panamax does not even list which type of surges it protects from. Otherwise you might learn it does not protect from surges that typically destroy electronics. Third, somehow is this assumption that a surge protector is protection. A surge protector is simply a connecting device to protection. Protection is that earth ground. How do you increase protection? Enhance that earthing. 50 million protectors will not improve what that one (properly sized) 'whole house' protector will accomplish. Enhancing may significantly increase protection. But then even geology has not been defined. More important than half truths from Panamax is information such as geology. Meanwhile, where does that Panamax even discuss earthing? It does not because it does not even claim to protect from surges that typically damage household appliances. No earth ground means no effective protection. Finally, don't waste money on solutions that don't even claim to protect from typically destructive surges. Put that money into what defines the quality of your protection. Detailed description of how earth ground works for surge protection is in comp.sys.mac.comm on 4 Jul 2007 entitled "DSL speed" at http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 13, 9:08 pm, Jay1028 wrote:
I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to say about the cable installation. Again you are assuming a protector will somehow stop surges. If the cable has the best surge protection, then it has only a ground block ($2 in Lowes), a short wire connection to earth ground (see other post for the many factors absolutely required for that connection), and a single point earth ground as Michael Terrell discusses. Remember, no protector is protection. A protector is nothing more than a connecting device to protection. Protection is earthing. What defines quality of protection? Single point earthing. What is the only component that each protection 'system' requires? Single point earth ground. See details cited in that other post; a significant amount of reading. Those who have little concept of surge protection, instead, believe magic protector boxes will somehow stop what three miles of sky could not. Cable needs no protector. Protectors may even degrade TV and internet signals. Your protection is only as good as your single point earth ground. Repeated many times because so many have problems admitting a retail store salesman or half truths on boxes were lies. |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
I like Hapticz post. Don't use the power company at all. I have read
all the IEEE and NIST info and it looks like I am doing what I can to make the earthing as good as I can, I may be supporting all the hocus pocus that the surge protector companies put out by buying some of their products, but al least I am doing a lot a reading and making a somewhat educated decision on what to buy. The whole house device is my best bet and I'll just have to be dependent on the clamping feature provided by the point of use devices. I'll spend a couple of hundred doillars on devices that may or may not save my equipment, but I figure it is better than doing nothing. |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 13, 3:35 pm, sparky wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:52 pm, Jay1028 wrote: I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point of use (outlet). The two candiidates a Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if surge is sensed to be more than 2ms Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company. I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know. Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out there that you don't which is an good. I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either. Thanks, Jay Panamax and Leviton devices are good surge protectors. Do not believe everything you read about some device shutting off the surge in 2ms. If you are talking about a lightning strike close by then NO surge suppressor will completely elimate the problem 100% of the time. I agree with 100%. I live near the coast in southern California. We get an overhead thunderstorm one a year. I had a UPS (15 years ago) while working on my computer near a window. A lightning struck a pole a few hundred yards away and the computer when down. I restarted and my hard drive was not readable. I had to use norton utilities (Mac) to recover all my from the drive and reformat it. The drive failed a while later. Now for the things I only heard about: I have heard that your basic plug in "surge protectors" are not worth the extra money. I think having a grounded system is the first matter to be dealt with if the build has none (three pronged plugs). |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 13, 6:17 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: Jay1028 wrote: I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at 10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run. I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to say about the cable installation. Jay Were those ground rods tested for ground resistance? How deep are they, and what part of the state are you in? There are a lot of different soil conditions in different parts of Florida. We had to have 85 feet of ground rod driven before we passed the test in northern Lake County about 20 years ago. It was about three feet short of length of the well pipe. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida I new the average was 4' to 6' so I thought adding a few more would cover it all. I never thought one would have to go 85', now I will get a professional to install a rod for serious matters. Thanks |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 14, 4:56 am, Cockamamie Khomeini
wrote: Jay1028 wrote: I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at 10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run. I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to say about the cable installation. Jay Just buy a small generator and run it with an electric motor. That will smooth out surges. -- Cockamamie Khomeini Leader of the known (Islamic) world. That's funny but it works. I guess the reason it does is because the continuous duty motor does not react surges. I never hear my table saw wind up suddenly, but my vacuum does if something else is unplugged. I thought my laptop would be protected if I had a 7amp battery run my laptop while the same battery was being charged with a regular "plug in the wall charger". I was told that it would not work as a surge protector. |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
What type of equipment are you protecting?
My experience is that the Panamax units are very good and very effective. We use them on nearly every system we install, here in north central Florida, which sees more lightning than most areas in the US. We rarely see any system damage on properly installed units. This means that all incoming signal lines in addition to power are connected through the surge suppressor, all incoming lines are grounded according to code, and the elsectrical service ground is intact and effective. We DO see system damage when cable installers disconnect the cable line from the surge suppressor, however, which leads me to believe that the signal lines are critical to protection. The whole house suppression probably does not address this. Leonard "Jay1028" wrote in message ... I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point of use (outlet). The two candiidates a Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if surge is sensed to be more than 2ms Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company. I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know. Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out there that you don't which is an good. I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either. Thanks, Jay |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
|
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
GregS wrote:
I never even heard of a test. I guess in some areas they don't worry about it. You would think Florida would be pretty good conductivity compared to most other areas. Most or all homes around me have a ground on the water pipe comming into the house. Its a good ground, but the outside rods must be at the box. It could span the distance of the house. If you have standard telephone, don't forget to protect the incomming line. Whatever you get, make use of the insurance. If its such a problem, I would have the electric company install the device. I can "rent" a device by them at some extra expense. The test was the ability to blow one of the old screw in 15 amp household fuses. Sure, the well casing is grounded, but they are rarely anywhere near the electrical service. Our well was over 100 feet from the pole pig, and meter. Would you bet your life on a single #12 AWG safety ground? I wouldn't. The ground rod was at the meter, and had to be driven 85 feet, before it would blow the fuse. Some areas of Florida are sugar sand, with VERY poor conductivity. Lake county is one of those areas. 50 years ago, the sandy land was used to grow oranges, and had very few residents. Another thing to keep in mind is that Central Florida is the lightning capital of the United States. Its quite common for a storm to have over 3000 recorded strikes, per hour. Systems that are adequate in safer areas just aren't good enough in a place like this. I have had battery powered equipment explode from the EMP when a bolt hit the marsh, 25 feet behind my shop. I had the CRT video dries blown on a VGA monitor that was not only disconnected, but the video cable was wrapped around the base of the monitor. I was resetting my computer desk, and had just disconnected it when the storm hit. Hours later, after the electricity came back on I had no monitor, or mouse. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 15, 7:22 pm, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:
. We DO see system damage when cable installers disconnect the cable line from the surge suppressor, however, which leads me to believe that the signal lines are critical to protection. The whole house suppression probably does not address this. Any protector that does not make a short connection to earth ground does what? Earthing that surge destructively elsewhere such as through the adjacent appliance. Any protection that works at the appliance is already inside the appliance. New standards mean that signal lines must withstand even 15,000 volts without damage. Yes that few volt signal line must also not be damaged by 2,000 and 15,000 volts So we earth that surge before it even enters the building - does not get near to signal lines. Did damage exist? That says little about the protector and says nothing about a plug-in protector. That damage says a surge was permitted inside the building to maybe overwhelm protection inside signal lines. How does the telephone company with signal lines everywhere inside their building not suffer computer damage? Every wire is properly earthed either by a direct earthing connection or via a 'whole house' type protector. Why is telephone service not down for four days every year while they replace that computer? Why can that computer suffer one hundred surges during every thunderstorm and not suffer damage? They don't use grossly overpriced Panamax or Monster Cable products. Instead they spend less money on more effective 'whole house' type protectors and they enhance that single point earthing. How is the protection made even better? They install even better earth grounds. Did a surge enter on cable TV wire? Then how was that cable earthed. Installing a Panamax on that cable TV wire is even not recommended by the cable company for the same reasons that early 20th Century Ham radio operators finally stopped surges. Will the Panamax absorb surges? The Panamax does not even claim to protect from type of surges that typically cause electronics damage. Those who recommend that Panamax routinely ignore that reality. Good reason why Panamax does not make that claim. No dedicated earthing wire. No earth ground means no effective protection. Meanwhile, smoke detectors also were not routinely damaged during surges. Is that because smoke detectors are connected to invisible protectors? No. If something is undamaged with a Panamax proves nothing since other appliances also are not damaged - and have no Panamax. Damning is that the Panamax does not even claim to protect from that type of surge. |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 15, 7:22 pm, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:
. We DO see system damage when cable installers disconnect the cable line from the surge suppressor, however, which leads me to believe that the signal lines are critical to protection. The whole house suppression probably does not address this. Any protector that does not make a short connection to earth ground does what? Earthing that surge destructively elsewhere such as through the adjacent appliance. Any protection that works at the appliance is already inside the appliance. New standards mean that signal lines must withstand even 15,000 volts without damage. Yes that few volt signal line must also not be damaged by 2,000 and 15,000 volts So we earth that surge before it even enters the building - does not get near to signal lines. Did damage exist? That says little about the protector and says nothing about a plug-in protector. That damage says a surge was permitted inside the building to maybe overwhelm protection inside signal lines. How does the telephone company with signal lines everywhere inside their building not suffer computer damage? Every wire is properly earthed either by a direct earthing connection or via a 'whole house' type protector. Why is telephone service not down for four days every year while they replace that computer? Why can that computer suffer one hundred surges during every thunderstorm and not suffer damage? They don't use grossly overpriced Panamax or Monster Cable products. Instead they spend less money on more effective 'whole house' type protectors and they enhance that single point earthing. How is the protection made even better? They install even better earth grounds. Did a surge enter on cable TV wire? Then how was that cable earthed. Installing a Panamax on that cable TV wire is even not recommended by the cable company for the same reasons that early 20th Century Ham radio operators finally stopped surges. Will the Panamax absorb surges? The Panamax does not even claim to protect from type of surges that typically cause electronics damage. Those who recommend that Panamax routinely ignore that reality. Good reason why Panamax does not make that claim. No dedicated earthing wire. No earth ground means no effective protection. Meanwhile, smoke detectors also were not routinely damaged during surges. Is that because smoke detectors are connected to invisible protectors? No. If something is undamaged with a Panamax proves nothing since other appliances also are not damaged - and have no Panamax. Damning is that the Panamax does not even claim to protect from that type of surge. |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
w_tom wrote:
The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
w_tom wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:45 pm, Jay1028 wrote: Rods are 8ft, 5/8" galvanized with bronze clamps.. I Live in northeast Florida near Marineland. First, even effective surge protectors do not stop typically destructive surges. One that implies protection forgets to mention it protects from surges that typically don't damage - surges that don't overwhelm protection already in all appliances. The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form the IEEE: http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf And also the NIST: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses. For us surges coming in on US power wires, common mode surges are converted to transverse mode by the neutral-ground bond at the service. In any case, plugin suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That covers all surge modes. What determines the effectiveness of that 'whole house' protector? Quality of earthing and connection to earthing. w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40). Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through the suppressor (as Leonard said). Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport suppressors are described in the IEEE guide. According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment most frequently damaged by lightning is computers with a modem connection TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV connections). All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires. Another important protection element, referred to by someone else, is single point ground. The most important part of a single point ground is that phone, CATV, ... protection blocks connect with a *short* ground wire to the earthing wire at the power service. With a large surge there will always be a difference from the house ground to ‘absolute’ ground. The goal is for the power, CATV and phone 'grounds' to rise together. The author of the NIST guide wrote “the impedance of the grounding system to ‘true earth’ is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system.” In many houses the phone, CATV service entry are distant from the power service. The IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) provides an example of what can happen if the interconnecting wires are too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." (But another method is to run the phone wire from the entry NID to the power service area and install a 2nd NID, then distribute the phone wires from there.) Meanwhile, where does that Panamax even discuss earthing? It does not because it does not even claim to protect from surges that typically damage household appliances. No earth ground means no effective protection. The religious belief in earthing again. And the myth of the magic damaging surge again. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Ratings range from junk to very high. The IEEE guide lists earthing, single point ground, power service surge suppression, and plug-in suppressors as protection elements. If I was in high lightning areas I would use them all. It is not obvious what the Power Sentry reference to 2ms is about. A surge will be over far before 2 ms. It could be that the Power Sentry will disconnect if there is overvoltage for 2 ms. (The author of the NIST guide wrote "in fact, the major cause of TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge.") --------------------------- I though the ground water was usually near the surface in Florida. Even if the soil is sand wouldn’t the ground water provide a good ground? (I have read other reliable sources say resistance to ground is a problem.) -- bud-- |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
Urge suppressors, what a good idea. I think urge suppressors should be
applied to all convicted child molestors and all suicide bombers...then they should be grounded to a level of 6 ft. If there is any doubt on the effectiveness, then Michaels ground test should be applied. You can find info on keeping them legal from the NRA. Leonard "Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... w_tom wrote: The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
Urge suppressors, what a good idea. I think urge suppressors should be applied to all convicted child molestors and all suicide bombers...then they should be grounded to a level of 6 ft. If there is any doubt on the effectiveness, then Michael's ground test should be applied. You can find info on keeping them legal from the NRA. I have plenty of 100 A fuses for that application. I'd even spring for a 150 A circuit breaker! The question is, would it stop sleezebags from running for office? ;-) -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
put finger to keyboard and composed: w_tom wrote: The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years. I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day, and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals. For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts, and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple MOV works. What's really annoying is that he patronisingly directs people to consult datasheets when he himself avoids doing the same, or misunderstands them when he does. If you challenge him with actual numbers and formulae, he will run away and attempt to disguise his ignorance with a page of tedious, convoluted technobabble. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" put finger to keyboard and composed: w_tom wrote: The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years. I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day, and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals. For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts, and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple MOV works. What's really annoying is that he patronisingly directs people to consult datasheets when he himself avoids doing the same, or misunderstands them when he does. If you challenge him with actual numbers and formulae, he will run away and attempt to disguise his ignorance with a page of tedious, convoluted technobabble. - Franc Zabkar Most of us have given up on trying to make sense out of his posts and trying to have any real dialogue with him. You can hurt your brain doing so. Michael's has exploded at least once, and I think Bud has suffered some damage as well. You have to give Bud credit for his persistence, though. Leonard |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
Most of us have given up on trying to make sense out of his posts and trying to have any real dialogue with him. You can hurt your brain doing so. Michael's has exploded at least once, and I think Bud has suffered some damage as well. You have to give Bud credit for his persistence, though. He took a real beating on news:alt.certification.a-plus a while back. He kept bleating about a long gone standards group for business equipment, and claiming that all personal computers had to boot and continue to work at 90 VAC input. I posted a long list of power supply model numbers and the nameplate specifications, which he dismissed as irrelevant, because I didn't have a degree, like him. I never knew that being an anonymous idiot on USENET required a degree, but he's the living, ranting proof. An bunch of people kept kicking him around, till he finally stopped posting. Another regular on that group claims that there never was a problem with bad electrolytics on motherboards, because he had spent his entire working life working for IBM, on mainframes. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
On Jul 18, 2:53 am, bud-- wrote:
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form the IEEE:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf And also the NIST:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high. Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector. Therefore it was too far from earth ground. A surge finds earth ground. If not earthed before entering a building, then a surge may even find destructive paths through disconnected appliances. This was demonstrated even by early 20th Century Ham radio operators who would put their antenna wires even inside a mason jar. Damage to disconnected equipment still resulted. When the antenna (incoming) wire was earthed. then damage stopped. Protection means surges must be earthed before entering a building. Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection. But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf 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. All appliances contain internal protection. Protection that may be overwhelmed if surges are not properly earthed before entering the building. Protection that may be overwhelmed if a protector is too close to an appliance and therefore earths that surge destructively through the appliance: Page 42 Figure 8. A long list of responsible companies do make 'whole house' protectors that costs tens of times less money per appliance AND provide superior protection. This long list includes names that any electrically informed guy will recognize: Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, GE, Siemens. One 'whole house' protector does so much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire. These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50. Why do plug-in promoters fear you learn what is necessary for effective protection? Let's see. Bud's protector is a $3 power strip with some $0.10 components. It is sold for $25 or $100. With profit margins that high, then it was essential for Bud to not discuss earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection. Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point earth ground. Surge protection is secondary to profit margins. Even his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A protector simply connects a surge to protection. But a protector promoted as a magic box becomes a profit center. |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
w_tom wrote:
On Jul 18, 2:53 am, bud-- wrote: The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form the IEEE:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf And also the NIST:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high. To quote the all-knowing w_ “It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My “half truths” come from the IEEE and NIST. w_’s opinions come from his religious belief in earthing - with no sources. Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector. Therefore it was too far from earth ground. The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1 connected to it. Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage at TV2. The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power service is too long (not a “single point ground”). As I said in my previous post, the IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector.” Because plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing he has to distort what the IEEE guide says about them. Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection. Poor w_ can’t figure out that my last post covered earthing, as do both guides . And because plug–in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing he can’t understand how they work. Repeating from my last post: “The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).” But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf The question is not about earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". and: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." Because plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing he has to distort what the NIST guide says about them. One 'whole house' protector does so much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire. These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50. w_ has never provided a link to the mythical $50 ‘whole house protector’. Or specs for one. Yet another claim w_ can't back up with a source. Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point earth ground. If w_ could only read and think he would have seen single point ground was a major point in my last post. Even his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A protector simply connects a surge to protection. And the religious belief in earthing again. The question is not earthing – everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. There are 98,615,938 other 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 is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. 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". 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-- |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" put finger to keyboard and composed: w_tom wrote: The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years. I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day, and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals. For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts, and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple MOV works. My guess is that he was once quite sharp but is rather impaired now. Some of his comments are very good. The comments you refer to on aus.electronics were amazingly (and I think uncharacteristically) bad. He sometimes totally misunderstands what people say (in addition to making things up). He has a fetish for tower antennas - ham? worked in broadcast? He uses google-groups to search - favorites are surge, lightning and power supply. Always certain, sometimes right. Someone posted not too long ago (I have no idea if it is accurate but hey - this is the usenet): IP address: 71.224.156.198 Reverse DNS: c-71-224-156-198.hsd1.pa.comcast.net. Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified] ASN: 33287 ASN Name: DNEO-OSP4 IP range connectivity: 2 Registrar (per ASN): ARIN Country (per IP registrar): US [United States] Country Currency: USD [United States Dollars] Country IP Range: 71.128.0.0 to 71.255.255.255 Country fraud profile: Normal City (per outside source): Phoenixville, Pennsylvania Country (per outside source): US [United States] Private (internal) IP? No -- bud-- |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
"bud--" wrote in message .. . w_tom wrote: On Jul 18, 2:53 am, bud-- wrote: The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form the IEEE:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf And also the NIST:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high. To quote the all-knowing w_ “It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My “half truths” come from the IEEE and NIST. w_’s opinions come from his religious belief in earthing - with no sources. Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector. Therefore it was too far from earth ground. The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1 connected to it. Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage at TV2. The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power service is too long (not a “single point ground”). As I said in my previous post, the IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector.” Because plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing he has to distort what the IEEE guide says about them. Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection. Poor w_ can’t figure out that my last post covered earthing, as do both guides . And because plug–in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing he can’t understand how they work. Repeating from my last post: “The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).” But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf The question is not about earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". and: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." Because plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing he has to distort what the NIST guide says about them. One 'whole house' protector does so much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire. These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50. w_ has never provided a link to the mythical $50 ‘whole house protector’. Or specs for one. Yet another claim w_ can't back up with a source. Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point earth ground. If w_ could only read and think he would have seen single point ground was a major point in my last post. Even his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A protector simply connects a surge to protection. And the religious belief in earthing again. The question is not earthing – everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. There are 98,615,938 other 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 is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. 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". 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-- Your comments are supported by my field experience. We see lightning damaged tuners and inputs all the time. The are never connected through surge suppressors on the cable or sat line. We have hundreds of installs WITH surge suppressors that never see any damage. w_tom IS correct about them importance of grounding, up to a point. 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. He is a perfect example of how a lot of knowledge can be made useless, or even harmful, when it is misapplied. Leonard |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:11:17 -0500, bud-- put
finger to keyboard and composed: Franc Zabkar wrote: On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" put finger to keyboard and composed: w_tom wrote: The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years. I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day, and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals. For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts, and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple MOV works. My guess is that he was once quite sharp but is rather impaired now. Some of his comments are very good. The comments you refer to on aus.electronics were amazingly (and I think uncharacteristically) bad. He sometimes totally misunderstands what people say (in addition to making things up). He has a fetish for tower antennas - ham? worked in broadcast? I think he gets away with a lot of what he says because of the nature of the subject. I confess that I know next to nothing about it myself, but I do know how to read a datasheet and I understand basic circuit theory. And being an engineer, I like to quantify observations and assertions with numbers and examples wherever possible. He uses google-groups to search - favorites are surge, lightning and power supply. Always certain, sometimes right. I've encountered him in PSU debates and once again I have mixed thoughts about him. He doesn't appear to have an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of PSUs, or any electronic device for that matter. Instead he seems to be a specification junkie. That said, he has corrected me on at least one occasion that I can recall, and of course I'm grateful for that. Someone posted not too long ago (I have no idea if it is accurate but hey - this is the usenet): IP address: 71.224.156.198 Reverse DNS: c-71-224-156-198.hsd1.pa.comcast.net. Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified] ASN: 33287 ASN Name: DNEO-OSP4 IP range connectivity: 2 Registrar (per ASN): ARIN Country (per IP registrar): US [United States] Country Currency: USD [United States Dollars] Country IP Range: 71.128.0.0 to 71.255.255.255 Country fraud profile: Normal City (per outside source): Phoenixville, Pennsylvania Country (per outside source): US [United States] Private (internal) IP? No That's very interesting! There is an edit in Wikipedia's Varistor article by someone posting from 71.224.191.77 on 13 January 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...did=9972 4060 The changes reflect what w_tom has been saying at aus.electronics recently, and the writing style is remarkably similar. For example, the article states that "less energy is absorbed by a varistor ... as varistor energy rating is increased." This is something that I demonstrated to be essentially insignificant (a 20mm MOV absorbs only about 5% less energy than a 7mm MOV when clamping the same 1000A surge). - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#34
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
On Jul 18, 10:18 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: He took a real beating on news:alt.certification.a-plus a while back. He kept bleating about a long gone standards group for business equipment, and claiming that all personal computers had to boot and continue to work at 90 VAC input. I posted a long list of power supply model numbers and the nameplate specifications, which he dismissed as irrelevant, because I didn't have a degree, like him. w_tom saw repeated accusations provided without technical facts. Technical facts were presented - and ignored by technicians who somehow knew without even first learning industry standards. Demonstrated here and again is why Michael Terrell *knew* computers must not work at 90 VAC. He completely ignored industry standard numbers. He did not understand that faceplate numbers are often derated numbers. He chose to believe derated numbers rather that industry design standards. Many computer power supplies that must operate even at 90 VAC will not say 90 on its faceplate. But industry standards define reality. Technicians would not know what reality is - unless the technician learned (instead) from industry standards. According to Michael Terrell, a faceplate number is biblical? That's what we sometimes tell technicians when they have trouble grasping concepts. Computer power supply typically exceeds those numbers. Again consult Intel specs - what Michael repeatedly ignored because those standards contradicted them. Computers under maximum load must start up even when voltages are only at 90 VAC. Exact quote (again) from those Intel specs is: The power supply shall be capable of supplying full rated output power over two input voltage ranges rated 100-127 VAC and 200-240 VAC RMS nominal. ... The power supply must be able to start up under peak loading at 90 VAC. From Table 1 Minimum 90 Nominal 115 Maximum 135 VAC RMS Minimum 180 Nominal 240 Maximum 265 VAC RMS Quoted directly from standards that ATX power supplies must meet. Still Michael Terrell denied those numbers as he also denies how surge protectors do and do not work. This is not about power supplies. This is about the many who somehow know without even learning basic technology - ignore standards. These same people promote plug-in protectors as some kind of magic box rather than learn the technology. Demonstrated again is what also happened in alt.certification.a-plus . Technicians repeatedly denied facts and numbers. Another standard for electronics is from the Computer Equipment Manufacturers Association. Numbers from that standard also contradict Michael Terrell: Undervoltages without interruption- 50 volts RMS for less than 20 msec 85 volts RMS for less than 0.5 sec 95 volts RMS for less than 10 sec Another poster in alt.certification.a-plus stated what reality really is - directly contradicting Michael Terrell both then and now: Tom MacIntyre in "Motheboard Problem? Post Problem?" in alt.certification.a-plus on 7 Sept 2001 We operate everything on an isolated variac, which means that I can control the voltage going into the unit I am working on from about 150 volts down to zero. This enables us to verify power regulation for over and under-voltage situations. A linear supply (many TV's) will start to lose its regulation from 100 volts down to maybe 90, and the set will shut off by 75 volts AC or so. Switching supplies (more and more TV's, and all monitors I've ever seen), on the other hand, are different. Although it's hard on the primary section due to the current and duty cycle of the switching, they can and will regulate with very low voltages on the AC line in; the best I've seen was a TV which didn't die until I turned the variac down to 37 VAC! A brownout wouldn't have even affected the picture on that set. How did a TV work at 75 volts when its faceplate says otherwise? Michael - the faceplate is a derated number - repeated because you still have problems grasping it. You are supposed to know that just like you are supposed to know what a protector does, what destructive surges seek, and why effective protectors have that dedicated earthing wire. How many times was Michael Terrell contradicted with technical facts and numbers from reality ... again? Three? Four? It could be 100. History suggests he will still deny the 90 VAC spec number. Quoted from an industry standard - and he will still deny it? Those who promote Panamax products as effective protectors, well, why does the manufacturer's numerical specification forget to make that same claim? Panamax has no dedicated earth ground and therefore does not claim to protect from that type of surge. If it does not mention various types of surges, then maybe some techs will assume all surges are same type? That is how Panamax, APC, Monster Cable, and the grocery store protector are all recommended. Half truths that ignore basic technology. But again, why look at numbers when one knows by even denying direct quotes from an Intel spec. Only beating in that previous discussion was truth and reality. So many accusations made by denying technical facts and ignoring industry standards. Why did Michael Terrell deny those industry standards? He did not even know that faceplate numbers may be derated. He should have known that reality before posting. He also should have learned what shunt mode protectors do before promoting myths. No earth ground means no effective protection. |
#35
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
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. If better earthing is not provided, then where does a surge current go? Clamping (shunting, connecting, bonding, diverting) a surge current to single point ground is the purpose of a shunt mode protector. If that earth ground is not sufficient, how do we avoid future failure? We improve earthing. 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 Why does the telco also not use those plug-in protectors? They also know what provides the protection. Telcos are fanatical about shunting surges through properly earthed protectors. Repeat damage means that earthing system gets immediate attention. They don't waste money on an ineffective plug-in solution. 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. Just another reason why those without surge damage installed or upgraded the earthing system - to make the protector even better. Surges earthed where wires enter the building. It is standard procedure in every professionally installed solution. Did I discuss other details? Of course not. Those details are not relevant to this topic - residential electrical 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. 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: 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. 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. So much money and so little protection - that cannot be installed on so many human safety devices. Instead we earth one 'whole house' protector for everything - even AC powered telephone appliances (answering machine, portable phone base station, etc). And if it is not good enough, we enhance the earthing. Massively superior protection for tens of times less money. If earth ground is not sufficient, do we spend $25 or $100 for everything - or fix the earthing? A surge that does not enter the house will not overwhelm protection even found standard in TVs. Much less expensive solution that even works for two wire receptacle (pre-1960 wired) homes. |
#36
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Surge protectors?
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-- |
#37
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
w_tom wrote:
On Jul 18, 10:18 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: He took a real beating on news:alt.certification.a-plus a while back. He kept bleating about a long gone standards group for business equipment, and claiming that all personal computers had to boot and continue to work at 90 VAC input. I posted a long list of power supply model numbers and the nameplate specifications, which he dismissed as irrelevant, because I didn't have a degree, like him. w_tom saw repeated accusations provided without technical facts. Technical facts were presented - and ignored by technicians who somehow knew without even first learning industry standards. Demonstrated here and again is why Michael Terrell *knew* computers must not work at 90 VAC. He completely ignored industry standard numbers. He did not understand that faceplate numbers are often derated numbers. He chose to believe derated numbers rather that industry design standards. Many computer power supplies that must operate even at 90 VAC will not say 90 on its faceplate. But industry standards define reality. Technicians would not know what reality is - unless the technician learned (instead) from industry standards. According to Michael Terrell, a faceplate number is biblical? That's what we sometimes tell technicians when they have trouble grasping concepts. Computer power supply typically exceeds those numbers. Again consult Intel specs - what Michael repeatedly ignored because those standards contradicted them. Computers under maximum load must start up even when voltages are only at 90 VAC. Exact quote (again) from those Intel specs is: The power supply shall be capable of supplying full rated output power over two input voltage ranges rated 100-127 VAC and 200-240 VAC RMS nominal. ... The power supply must be able to start up under peak loading at 90 VAC. From Table 1 Minimum 90 Nominal 115 Maximum 135 VAC RMS Minimum 180 Nominal 240 Maximum 265 VAC RMS Quoted directly from standards that ATX power supplies must meet. Still Michael Terrell denied those numbers as he also denies how surge protectors do and do not work. I have never seen a ATX form factor power supply that claimed to be ATX compliant. The same goes for cases, and the motherboards that I have manuals for. You are the one who ignores that a piece of wire has resistance, inductance, and capacitance between conductors that affect the waveform of any pulse on a power line. This properties, along with the MOV limit the COMMON MODE voltage between line and neutral. The impulse will also lift the ground conductor above zero volts, it is anywhere near the source. BTW, we had over 33,000 lightning strikes in Central Florida yesterday. This is not about power supplies. This is about the many who somehow know without even learning basic technology - ignore standards. Not all standards are created equally. Some are technical, others are political. These same people promote plug-in protectors as some kind of magic box rather than learn the technology. Who does that? They are used, WITH equipment installed at the breaker box. I haven't seen a house in my area that doesn't have some protection installed by the old Florida Power, or Progress Energy, who bought them. Demonstrated again is what also happened in alt.certification.a-plus . Technicians repeatedly denied facts and numbers. Smart move, damming every tech in the newsgroup. Another standard for electronics is from the Computer Equipment Manufacturers Association. Numbers from that standard also contradict Michael Terrell: Numbers from a group that hasn't existed in 13 years? Also, you ignore that their standards were 'voluntary'. Undervoltages without interruption- 50 volts RMS for less than 20 msec 85 volts RMS for less than 0.5 sec 95 volts RMS for less than 10 sec Those obsolete references are for BUSINESS Computers: I.E. Mini computers and mainframes, not PCs. PCs, by definition, are home computers. http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&rls=com. microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GWYA&q=%22Computer+Equipment+Manu facturers+Association%22 The last time you went on this ridiculous rant, you called it: "Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association" (CBEMA) which changed its name in 1994: ************************************************** ******************** A cite from: http://www.itic.org/about.php In 1973, BEMA became the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA). For the next two decades, the association's value to member companies was manifest in numerous regulatory and legislative accomplishments, in successful efforts to build a network with counterparts in other nations, and in its ability to sustain voluntary industry standards programs in the U.S. and abroad. The association again reorganized in 1994 and was renamed the Information Technology Industry Council or ITI. The new name better reflected the dynamic IT industry as it is today -- consisting of manufacturers and suppliers of computers, telecommunications, business equipment, software, and IT services. ************************************************** ******************** Another poster in alt.certification.a-plus stated what reality really is - directly contradicting Michael Terrell both then and now: Tom only saw what he wanted to see, as usual. Tom MacIntyre in "Motheboard Problem? Post Problem?" in alt.certification.a-plus on 7 Sept 2001 We operate everything on an isolated variac, which means that I can control the voltage going into the unit I am working on from about 150 volts down to zero. This enables us to verify power regulation for over and under-voltage situations. A linear supply (many TV's) will start to lose its regulation from 100 volts down to maybe 90, and the set will shut off by 75 volts AC or so. Switching supplies (more and more TV's, and all monitors I've ever seen), on the other hand, are different. Although it's hard on the primary section due to the current and duty cycle of the switching, they can and will regulate with very low voltages on the AC line in; the best I've seen was a TV which didn't die until I turned the variac down to 37 VAC! A brownout wouldn't have even affected the picture on that set. How did a TV work at 75 volts when its faceplate says otherwise? Michael - the faceplate is a derated number - repeated because you still have problems grasping it. You are supposed to know that just like you are supposed to know what a protector does, what destructive surges seek, and why effective protectors have that dedicated earthing wire. Just because it will work for a short time at 75 volts DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO SO. It will increase the current in the semiconductors used to switch the primary. That will cause the parts to run hotter, and shorten their life. You also increase the ripple current through the input filter capacitors, causing more heating. That dries out the electrolyte and raises the ESR. For someone who claims to have designed switch mode power supplies for decades, you know little or nothing about long term reliability, or proper derating of components. How many times was Michael Terrell contradicted with technical facts and numbers from reality ... again? Three? Four? It could be 100. History suggests he will still deny the 90 VAC spec number. Quoted from an industry standard - and he will still deny it? Tell us, Tom, where does your computer say it complies with the ATX standard? The only thing I've found is claims that the components meet ATX "Form factor" which is the MECHANICAL specifications. http://www.formfactors.org/default.asp give the specifications for ATX, which is the website that Intel uses to disseminate the ATX design specifications. Since they wrote the spec, and only qualify power supplies under form factor, you don't have a leg to stand on. http://www.formfactors.org/searchproducts.asp only list that the approved supplies are one of the ATX variants. All of the supplies on that list that I found data on DID NOT meet the ATX electrical specifications. Those who promote Panamax products as effective protectors, well, why does the manufacturer's numerical specification forget to make that same claim? Panamax has no dedicated earth ground and therefore does not claim to protect from that type of surge. If it does not mention various types of surges, then maybe some techs will assume all surges are same type? That is how Panamax, APC, Monster Cable, and the grocery store protector are all recommended. Half truths that ignore basic technology. But again, why look at numbers when one knows by even denying direct quotes from an Intel spec. This from the master of half truths? Only beating in that previous discussion was truth and reality. So many accusations made by denying technical facts and ignoring industry standards. Why did Michael Terrell deny those industry standards? He did not even know that faceplate numbers may be derated. He should have known that reality before posting. He also should have learned what shunt mode protectors do before promoting myths. No earth ground means no effective protection. The entire electronics industry disagrees with you. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#38
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message ... w_tom wrote: On Jul 18, 10:18 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: He took a real beating on news:alt.certification.a-plus a while back. He kept bleating about a long gone standards group for business equipment, and claiming that all personal computers had to boot and continue to work at 90 VAC input. I posted a long list of power supply model numbers and the nameplate specifications, which he dismissed as irrelevant, because I didn't have a degree, like him. w_tom saw repeated accusations provided without technical facts. Technical facts were presented - and ignored by technicians who somehow knew without even first learning industry standards. Demonstrated here and again is why Michael Terrell *knew* computers must not work at 90 VAC. He completely ignored industry standard numbers. He did not understand that faceplate numbers are often derated numbers. He chose to believe derated numbers rather that industry design standards. Many computer power supplies that must operate even at 90 VAC will not say 90 on its faceplate. But industry standards define reality. Technicians would not know what reality is - unless the technician learned (instead) from industry standards. According to Michael Terrell, a faceplate number is biblical? That's what we sometimes tell technicians when they have trouble grasping concepts. Computer power supply typically exceeds those numbers. Again consult Intel specs - what Michael repeatedly ignored because those standards contradicted them. Computers under maximum load must start up even when voltages are only at 90 VAC. Exact quote (again) from those Intel specs is: The power supply shall be capable of supplying full rated output power over two input voltage ranges rated 100-127 VAC and 200-240 VAC RMS nominal. ... The power supply must be able to start up under peak loading at 90 VAC. From Table 1 Minimum 90 Nominal 115 Maximum 135 VAC RMS Minimum 180 Nominal 240 Maximum 265 VAC RMS Quoted directly from standards that ATX power supplies must meet. Still Michael Terrell denied those numbers as he also denies how surge protectors do and do not work. I have never seen a ATX form factor power supply that claimed to be ATX compliant. The same goes for cases, and the motherboards that I have manuals for. You are the one who ignores that a piece of wire has resistance, inductance, and capacitance between conductors that affect the waveform of any pulse on a power line. This properties, along with the MOV limit the COMMON MODE voltage between line and neutral. The impulse will also lift the ground conductor above zero volts, it is anywhere near the source. BTW, we had over 33,000 lightning strikes in Central Florida yesterday. This is not about power supplies. This is about the many who somehow know without even learning basic technology - ignore standards. Not all standards are created equally. Some are technical, others are political. These same people promote plug-in protectors as some kind of magic box rather than learn the technology. Who does that? They are used, WITH equipment installed at the breaker box. I haven't seen a house in my area that doesn't have some protection installed by the old Florida Power, or Progress Energy, who bought them. Demonstrated again is what also happened in alt.certification.a-plus . Technicians repeatedly denied facts and numbers. Smart move, damming every tech in the newsgroup. Another standard for electronics is from the Computer Equipment Manufacturers Association. Numbers from that standard also contradict Michael Terrell: Numbers from a group that hasn't existed in 13 years? Also, you ignore that their standards were 'voluntary'. Undervoltages without interruption- 50 volts RMS for less than 20 msec 85 volts RMS for less than 0.5 sec 95 volts RMS for less than 10 sec Those obsolete references are for BUSINESS Computers: I.E. Mini computers and mainframes, not PCs. PCs, by definition, are home computers. http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&rls=com. microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GWYA&q=%22Computer+Equipment+Manu facturers+Association%22 The last time you went on this ridiculous rant, you called it: "Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association" (CBEMA) which changed its name in 1994: ************************************************** ******************** A cite from: http://www.itic.org/about.php In 1973, BEMA became the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA). For the next two decades, the association's value to member companies was manifest in numerous regulatory and legislative accomplishments, in successful efforts to build a network with counterparts in other nations, and in its ability to sustain voluntary industry standards programs in the U.S. and abroad. The association again reorganized in 1994 and was renamed the Information Technology Industry Council or ITI. The new name better reflected the dynamic IT industry as it is today -- consisting of manufacturers and suppliers of computers, telecommunications, business equipment, software, and IT services. ************************************************** ******************** Another poster in alt.certification.a-plus stated what reality really is - directly contradicting Michael Terrell both then and now: Tom only saw what he wanted to see, as usual. Tom MacIntyre in "Motheboard Problem? Post Problem?" in alt.certification.a-plus on 7 Sept 2001 We operate everything on an isolated variac, which means that I can control the voltage going into the unit I am working on from about 150 volts down to zero. This enables us to verify power regulation for over and under-voltage situations. A linear supply (many TV's) will start to lose its regulation from 100 volts down to maybe 90, and the set will shut off by 75 volts AC or so. Switching supplies (more and more TV's, and all monitors I've ever seen), on the other hand, are different. Although it's hard on the primary section due to the current and duty cycle of the switching, they can and will regulate with very low voltages on the AC line in; the best I've seen was a TV which didn't die until I turned the variac down to 37 VAC! A brownout wouldn't have even affected the picture on that set. How did a TV work at 75 volts when its faceplate says otherwise? Michael - the faceplate is a derated number - repeated because you still have problems grasping it. You are supposed to know that just like you are supposed to know what a protector does, what destructive surges seek, and why effective protectors have that dedicated earthing wire. Just because it will work for a short time at 75 volts DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO SO. It will increase the current in the semiconductors used to switch the primary. That will cause the parts to run hotter, and shorten their life. You also increase the ripple current through the input filter capacitors, causing more heating. That dries out the electrolyte and raises the ESR. For someone who claims to have designed switch mode power supplies for decades, you know little or nothing about long term reliability, or proper derating of components. How many times was Michael Terrell contradicted with technical facts and numbers from reality ... again? Three? Four? It could be 100. History suggests he will still deny the 90 VAC spec number. Quoted from an industry standard - and he will still deny it? Tell us, Tom, where does your computer say it complies with the ATX standard? The only thing I've found is claims that the components meet ATX "Form factor" which is the MECHANICAL specifications. http://www.formfactors.org/default.asp give the specifications for ATX, which is the website that Intel uses to disseminate the ATX design specifications. Since they wrote the spec, and only qualify power supplies under form factor, you don't have a leg to stand on. http://www.formfactors.org/searchproducts.asp only list that the approved supplies are one of the ATX variants. All of the supplies on that list that I found data on DID NOT meet the ATX electrical specifications. Those who promote Panamax products as effective protectors, well, why does the manufacturer's numerical specification forget to make that same claim? Panamax has no dedicated earth ground and therefore does not claim to protect from that type of surge. If it does not mention various types of surges, then maybe some techs will assume all surges are same type? That is how Panamax, APC, Monster Cable, and the grocery store protector are all recommended. Half truths that ignore basic technology. But again, why look at numbers when one knows by even denying direct quotes from an Intel spec. This from the master of half truths? Only beating in that previous discussion was truth and reality. So many accusations made by denying technical facts and ignoring industry standards. Why did Michael Terrell deny those industry standards? He did not even know that faceplate numbers may be derated. He should have known that reality before posting. He also should have learned what shunt mode protectors do before promoting myths. No earth ground means no effective protection. The entire electronics industry disagrees with you. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Careful Michael, you know how your head tends to explode when you beat it against a wall. Leonard |
#39
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
Careful Michael, you know how your head tends to explode when you beat it against a wall. Don't worry, I saved that message to copy and paste every time 'what's his face' shows up. ;-) BTW, do you want to bet on whether he'll snip away all the facts and continue to show everyone his ignorance? ;-) Anyway, he isn't a wall. He isn't much of anything. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
#40
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Anti urge protector jihad!
On Jul 20, 4:34 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: You are the one who ignores that a piece of wire has resistance, inductance, and capacitance between conductors that affect the waveform of any pulse on a power line. This properties, along with the MOV limit the COMMON MODE voltage between line and neutral. The impulse will also lift the ground conductor above zero volts, it is anywhere near the source. First, wire parameters were never ignored. As Michael knows, those parameters were discussed extensively. Wire inductance is why each incoming utility wire must make a 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection. Wire impedance is why plug-in protectors have all but no earth ground - therefore not effective protectors. Michael read a classic example where voltage between a plug-in protectors and the breaker box earth ground could be something less than 13,000 volts potential difference during a trivial 100 amp surge. Just another reason why Page 42 Figure 8 in Bud's citations shows a plug-in protector instead earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Why is that voltage not earthed by a plug-in protector - via the less than 13,000 volt ground wire? Wire parameters are why a connection to earth must be so short (no splices, no sharp bends, etc) and why plug-in protectors avoid all discussion about earthing. The 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection is but another reason why a 'whole house' protector is so effective and why plug-in protectors don't even claim (in manufacturer numerical specs) to protect from a typically destructive surge. The second point: lifting of ground potential (also called GPR) is why effective protection systems use single point earthing. But again, an effective protection system achieves both conductivity and equipotential. What defines both parameters? Single point earthing electrode. Better protected homes install an Ufer ground or something equivalent since protection is defined by earthing. Better protected homes don't waste tens of times more money on ineffective and overhyped plug-in protectors. Other examples of superior protection (and again plug-in protectors are not a solution): http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm What defines protection? Earth ground. How do we install superior and effective protection 'systems'? See comp.sys.mac.comm on 4 Jul 2007 entitled "DSL speed" at http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef Plug-in protectors are missing THE most critical component in every protection 'system': single point earth ground. Those promoting such grossly profitable devices ignore wire impedance and earth ground (as well as manufacturer datasheets, research papers, and even concepts demonstrated by Franklin in 1752). Wire parameters are why a 'whole house' protector is so effective as well as less expensive. No earth ground (ie Panamax and other poorly regarded products without a dedicated earthing wire) means no effective protection. What do responsible manufacturers such as Square D, GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, etc all provide with their protectors? A dedicated earthing wire. Why? That 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection determines quality - due to wire resistance, inductance, etc. Those effective solutions are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8: a protector without proper earthing, instead, earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Bud calls that acceptable because profits on each plug- in protector are so high. Bud routinely ignores wire resistance, inductance, etc - whihch is Michael's first point. Bud routinely ignores the essential purpose of earthing - which is Michael's second point. Bud promotes protectors that don't even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. That typically destructive surge is not a voltage difference between neutral and ground wires. Common mode surge - enters on any one or all three AC wires. Finds earth ground (outgoing) via another circuit path such as a cable TV wire, table top, or concrete floor. In Page 42 Figure 8. Why does that surge current find earth ground destructively through a TV? Wire to earth ground is too long - Michael's 1st point. Earthing that provides protection is improperly installed - Michael's 2nd point. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - a statement defined in part by wire parameters and how the earthing electrode is installed. Meanwhile, a person who repeatedly replies with supporting technical facts and numbers also posted details about earthing in http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef . Earthing - not a magic box - defines protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - including its dedicated wire connection. The effective protector has a dedicated wire for that 'less than 10 foot' connection to single point earth ground. Plug-in protectors 'forget' to install that necessary wire. Meanwhile those 'obsolete' standards for power supplies? Intel simply upped many of those requirements. And better power supply manufacturers now exceed some of those 'obsolete' numbers that every good tech was expected to have learned decades ago. Those numbers still apply today when the computer tech buys power supplies based in technical facts - not just in watts and dollars as is so common among computer assemblers. Any power supply that cannot start a computer when incandescant lamps are at 40% intensity is defective - directly traceable to a 'bean counter' masking as a technician. Provided three times over is what every responsible computer tech knows. A computer must even startup just fine when the 120 VAC power is only 90 VAC. That has been and is still the standard - where people know by first learning the technology - such as numbers from manufacturer datasheets, etc. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Surge Protectors | UK diy | |||
surge protectors | Home Repair | |||
Surge Protectors | Home Repair | |||
The Season for needing Surge Protectors and Interference Filters is upon us. | Electronics Repair | |||
Are PC surge protectors needed in the UK? | Electronics Repair |