westom wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:40 pm, (GregS) wrote:
I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
This is a basic model..................
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search

Bud's job is
to promote plug-in protectors.

Lacking any valid technical arguments westom attacks those who challenge
his nonsense.

So he will say anything to avoid that
reality.

westom will say anything to avoid the reality that plug-in suppressors
are effective.

The IEEE, NIST, General Electric, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Keison,
and Square D all say they are.

Every responsible source discusses earth as the means of
eliminating those voltage differences.

It is the religious belief (immune from challenge) in earthing.

Everyone is in favor of earthing.

And every responsible source says plug-in suppressors are effective.

The IEEE surge guide explains, for those that can think, that plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on each wire to the
ground at the suppressor, not earthing. The IEEE says earthing occurs
elsewhere in the system.


To do that means the protector must connect even direct lightning
strikes harmlessly to earth. To connect 20,000 amps (a typical
lightning strike) harmlessly to earth means, at minimum, a 50,000 amps
protector. At 24,000 amps, you would need two of those Grainger
protectors just to do a minimum.

A 20,000A direct lightning strike to a power line will have multiple
paths to earth. The maximum surge current to a house from a much more
powerful lightning is 10,000A according to accepted standards.

The IEEE surge guide recommends - for homes - ratings of 20-70kA, or for
high lightning areas 40-120kA.

westom, of course, is smarter than the IEEE.


More responsible companies make these 'whole house' protector
including General Electric, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Keison, and
Square D.

All these "responsible companies" except SquareD make plug-in suppressors.

SquareD says for their "best" service panel suppressor "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."

Surges created by motors
are the myth that Bud promotes

westom is prone to hallucinations. "Motors are not a particular surge
threat in a home."

Ask bud for the manufacturer spec that claims protection from
each type of surge. He works in this business.

The lie repeated - 2nd time.


UL is only about human safety. Says nothing about whether a
protector is effective.

Nonsense. As has been detailed previously, a UL listed suppressor has to
suppress a series of surges and remain functional.

He will not even admit he is paid to promote plug-
in protectors - ie that Tripplite.

The lie repeated - 3rd time.


What will that Tripplite do when its hundreds of joules somehow
absorbs surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Explode.
Vaporize. Create a human safety problem also seen in these other
scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

In addition to completely failing to understand how any suppressor
works, westom refuses to understand his own hanford link. It is about
"some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a
revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a
problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in
effect since 1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had
a UL label.

But with no valid technical arguments all westom has is pathetic scare
tactics.

Bud's job is to keep you from learning these realities.

The lie repeated - 4th time.

Plug-in protectors (ie that Tripplite) require
protection that only earthing and the 'whole house' protector can
provide.

Funny - neither the IEEE or NIST surge guides mention that.
Another of westom's hallucinations

Yes, to do what bud is claiming,
you must buy at least 20 plug-in protectors for all over house.

Yet another hallucination.


Did bud forget to mention what his job is?

The lie repeated - 5th time. People with valid arguments don't have to lie.

Still missing - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On Jun 9, 6:13 pm, Grant wrote:
Do they fail to known state? Open or short? App. note showed a test
rig with individually fused varistors, so I'm thinking they fail shorted?

How does it fail? Open - sometimes explosively.

They fail shorted. If not removed from a supply of power they may fracture.

A thermal fuse
disconnects its protector circuit. Leave the appliance connected to
that surge – to fend for itself.

As pointed out previously, in a plug-in suppressor the protected load
may be connected across the MOV and be disconnected with a failing MOV.

If a service panel suppressor fails it leaves the appliance connected to
surges – to fend for itself.

Earth
one 'whole house' protector so that energy dissipates harmlessly in
earth.

A service panel suppressor is a good idea.

But repeating from NIST surge guide:
"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
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable 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."

A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
cable/phone wires, which the NIST surge guide suggests is the cause of
most equipment damage.

A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.

westom's religious mantra protects him from confusing thoughts - like
plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Still missing - any reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

Jim Yanik wrote:
(GregS) wrote in
:

In article ,
(GregS) wrote:
In article
,
westom wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:10 am, (GregS) wrote:
But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??
How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that
energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten
cent protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its
purpose.

Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric
specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth
if connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to
earth ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That
Cutler- Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.

It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that
Tripplite
numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are
typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb
surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those
specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
provide those specs.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why
the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is
also the superior solution
OK, I can't find it on their website.

Read here. You say hundreds of thousands of Joules.
This one has 100KA at 840 Joules

The little bitty Tripplite laptop protector is over a 1000 Joules.

This is twice the amperage as you state.

http://www.drillspot.com/products/42...urge_Protector


Ratings are good. I wouldn't buy it because I have never heard of the
manufacturer. I would like to explicitly see that it is UL1449 listed.
"Meets UL" is a manufacturer claim and is not the same as UL listed (UL
tested). The "UL 1449 Clamping Volts" have nothing to do with UL ratings
- a red flag.

grge

surge protectors don't ABSORB strike energy,they shunt it to
ground,providing a low resistance path to ground.
Instead of the energy passing thru your equipment on it's way to ground.

That is probably appreciated by people here, but not in general. Neither
service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors protect by absorbing
the surge. But they both absorb some energy in protecting.


A higher Joules rating means the device absorbs less than a lower rated
device,and thus can divert more energy before IT blows up.

The energy rating of a MOV - say 100 joules - is the singe event energy
that can be absorbed by the MOV and put it at the defined end of life
(but still functional). If the energy hits are less, say 10 joules, the
cumulative energy rating will be significantly higher than 100 joules.
If the energy hits are far lower, say 2 joules, the cumulative energy
the MOV can absorb will be far larger than 100 joules. A very high
rating means the suppressor is far less likely to fail. I don't expect
my plug-in suppressors with high ratings to ever fail.


One more limit is your home wiring;how much strike energy can those lines
carry? (to ground)

and how good is the house ground?


If a house has a surge current to earth of 1,000A and a quite low
resistance to earth of 10 ohms the system ground will rise to 10,000V
above "absolute" earth potential.

Martzloff has written "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." Make sure the phone and cable
entrance protectors are connected with short wires to the ground at the
power service. (Other systems, like satellite must also be connected.)
If they are, the power and phone and cable wires can rise together. IMHO
'improving' the earthing is less important.

High voltage between power and phone/cable wires is likely a major cause
of equipment damage.

--
bud--

On Jun 11, 1:13 pm, bud-- wrote:
As pointed out previously, in a plug-in suppressor the protected load
may be connected across the MOV and be disconnected with a failing MOV.

That is not what your protectors do. Others can observe same. A
power strip protector with the 'failed' light on still power
appliances. Because the appliance is not disconnected when the
protector circuit fails. A grossly undersized protector circuit
disconnects as fast a possible to avoid fire. Leaves the appliance
connected to the surge.

Or view pictures from Zerosurge:
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
They removed all MOVs. ‘Failed’ light said the protector was still
good. And power was still connected to appliance receptacles. Again,
protector circuits disconnected – and appliance remains connected to
the surge.

Bud's NIST citation discusses his protectors:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will work by diverting
the surges to ground. The best surge protection in the world can be useless if grounding
is not done properly.

"useless if grounding is not done properly" defines protectors that
bud promotes. I am kind. I only called them ineffective. The NIST
calls them "useless".

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Every
protection layer is only defined by THE item that does protection -
earth ground. Earth one 'whole house' protector for secondary
protection. Necessary even to protect protectors that bud promotes.

Also inspect your primary protection system. Again, every
protection layer is only defined by the earthing:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

bud will post incessently. And never provide one simple fact.
Numeric specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He
promotes high profit plug-in protectors. And still cannot cite even
one manufacturer spec that lists protection from each type of surge.
Of course not. Plug-in protectors are neither designed nor claim to
provide protection from typically destructive surges. But when
selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent protector parts for $25 or
$150, then why tell the whole truth?

Protection - as even defined in all his citations - is only as
effective as its earth ground. Page 42 Figure 8 even shows the
protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a TV –
because the protector is too close to appliances and too far from
earth ground. Protection is always about where energy dissipates.
How does his protector (hundreds of joules) absorb surges that are
hundreds of thousands of joules? It doesn't. So he does not post
numeric specs. Will not even discuss where energy dissipates.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. How do those
hundreds of joules make surges - hundreds of thousands of joules -
just magically disappear? That answer is adjacent to those never
provided numeric specs.

On Jun 11, 1:27 pm, bud-- wrote:
Martzloff has written "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."

Martzloff what quite clear about what plug-in (point of connection)
protectors can do to appliances. It was the very first conclusion in
his 1994 paper - that discusses where energy dissipates:
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.

What is necessary to protect plug-in protectors? What is necessary
so that plug-in protectors do not make appliance damage easier?
Earthing. And a 'whole house' protector properly connected short (ie
' less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground. Where is surge
energy dissipated when the effective 'whole house' protector is
earthed? Harmlessly outside the building. Then objectionable
differences do not exist in reference voltages.

Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on plug-in
protectors? They put their money where it does protection. Better
earth grounds and a 'whole house' type protector that costs
significantly less money. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

Somehow that 1000 joules protector (that only used 333 and never
more than 667 joules) will magically make hundreds of thousands of
joules just magically disappear? I would say the same thing if my
profit margins were that excessive.

On Jun 11, 12:57*pm, bud-- wrote:
Why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day when they are hit bylightning? Do they drag an earthing chain?

Even his own citation contradicts what he posts. His own citaion,
page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates the problem with plug-in protectors.
Especially an earthed 'whole house' protector is missing. He cannot
deny that. So he now wants to discuss airplanes..

Why is 'cloud to cloud' lightning relevant to protecting household
appliances? It is not. Why are flying airplanes relevant? They are
not. Bud's job is propaganda - to promote protectors that have no
earthing. In deperation, he will discuss a flying airplane.

Where are those numeric specs that claim protection from each type
of surge. Bud cannot provide them for one simple reason. They can
lie all they want in a sales brochure. But they cannot lie in the
numeric specs. Bud cannot present numbers that do not exist. So now
he wants to discuss flying airplanes.

Read his own citations. The NIST defines bud's protectors:
The best surge protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Numerous IEEE Standards say why bud's protectors do not claim
protection in their numeric specs. From the IEEE Red Book:
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process of interception of lightning produced
surges, diverting them to ground, and by altering their associated wave shapes.

How does it divert to earth when it does not connect to earth? Does
it magically make energy disappear? Diverting (connectiong, bonding,
shunting, switching) a surge to earth. Then the protector does,
according to the NIST:
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So bud wants
to discuss airplanes to avoid reality. Where are those manufacturer
specs that claim protection from each type of surge? NIST and IEEE
say why bud cannot provide them. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground.

westom wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:27 pm, bud-- wrote:
Martzloff has written "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."

Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on plug-in
protectors?

Gee - why wouldn't telcos use plug-in suppressors for their switches? Um
- one reason may be because the switches are high amp hard wired and the
thousands of phone circuits would have go through the suppressor?

A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

The required religious mantra along with the drivel that has already
been debunked. westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you
repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

But - surprise - still no reliable source that agrees with westom that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And surprise - still missing, answers to any of the simple questions:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:57 pm, bud-- wrote:
Why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day when they are hit bylightning? Do they drag an earthing chain?

So he now wants to discuss airplanes..

westom still refuses to explain how you can protect airplanes without an
earth connection. What a surprise.

Why are flying airplanes relevant?

"A protector is only as effective as its earth ground."

If you could figure out how airplanes are protected you could figure out
how plug-in suppressors work.

In deperation, he will discuss a flying airplane.

In desperation westom will ignore the question.


Where are those numeric specs that claim protection from each type
of surge. Bud cannot provide them for one simple reason.

Each type of surge is still nonsense. And westom has never explained how
common mode surges get past the neutral-ground bond required in all US
services.

Just a few of the times specs have been provided:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=1770++joules+author%3Abud--&btnG=Search&sitesearch=

westom will continue to lie about them just like he has every time in
the past.

Numerous IEEE Standards say why bud's protectors do not claim
protection in their numeric specs. From the IEEE Red Book:

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes
plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most
appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.

And the IEEE surge guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in
suppressors are effective.


A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Ho-hum - the required religious mantra.

Still no reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Still missing, answers to simple questions:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?

Why can't you answer simple questions westom???

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On Jun 11, 1:13 pm, bud-- wrote:
As pointed out previously, in a plug-in suppressor the protected load
may be connected across the MOV and be disconnected with a failing MOV.

That is not what your protectors do. Others can observe same. A
power strip protector with the 'failed' light on still power
appliances.

With minimal reading ability westom could read in the IEEE surge guide
the discussion on connecting the protected load across the MOVs. At
least one, and probalby both, of the suppressors I have do that.


Or view pictures from Zerosurge:
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
They removed all MOVs.

This is indeed a problem if there is a gang of MOV thieves operating in
your neighborhood. Check with your local police.

The NIST
calls them "useless".

If the village idiot was not wearing religious blinders he could read
what the NIST surge guide says:
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.

Necessary even to protect protectors that bud promotes.

I promote only accurate information - like the IEEE and NIST surge guides.

westom promotes his religious beliefs. Just like talking to Jehovah’s
Witness.


bud will post incessently.

westom will post incessantly. His belief in earthing has been challenged
and cracks in his universe may develop.

And never provide one simple fact.

Facts I have provided:
- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"
- The NIST guide says "One effective solution is to have the consumer
install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
- A service panel suppressor would provide no protection in the IEEE
example, page 42.
- The IEEE guide says in one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".
- Martzloff says in a paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is
the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]".
- Dr. Mansoor supports multiport plug-in suppressors
- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".
- SquareD service panel suppressors do not list "each type of surge".


And the biggest fact:
westom has never provided a source that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

bud-- wrote:
westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you
repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Oopsies, thread over. Due to my invoking of Goodwin's Law.

Jeff


--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

Jeffrey D Angus wrote in
:

bud-- wrote:
westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you
repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Oopsies, thread over. Due to my invoking of Goodwin's Law.

Jeff



isn't it Godwin's Law? (DAGS)

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.


The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.

But "westom" does post often WRT lightning protection.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim Yanik wrote:
isn't it Godwin's Law? (DAGS)

Yeah, my fingers are either getting fatter or my keyboard's
getting narrower.

Jeff

--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

westom wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:10 am, (GregS) wrote:
But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??

How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that
energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose.

Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric
specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if
connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth
ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler-
Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.

It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite
numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are
typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb
surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those
specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
provide those specs.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why
the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is
also the superior solution.

bingo.

I'm still amused that people really believe bogus junk surge protector
power strips from china are actually made to any relevant UL rating of any
sort.

GregS wrote:
In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article ,
westom wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:10 am, (GregS) wrote:
But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??

How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that
energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose.

Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric
specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if
connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth
ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler-
Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.

It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite
numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are
typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb
surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those
specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
provide those specs.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why
the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is
also the superior solution

OK, I can't find it on their website.

Read here. You say hundreds of thousands of Joules.
This one has 100KA at 840 Joules


The little bitty Tripplite laptop protector is over a 1000 Joules.

you really think so?

send one over to me, I'll post a video of me dumping 1kJ into to to see
what happens.

Cydrome Leader wrote:
westom wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:10 am, (GregS) wrote:
But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??
How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that
energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose.

Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric
specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if
connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth
ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler-
Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.

It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite
numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are
typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb
surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those
specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
provide those specs.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why
the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is
also the superior solution.

bingo.

I'm still amused that people really believe bogus junk surge protector
power strips from china are actually made to any relevant UL rating of any
sort.

"People" - like the 6 electrical engineers that actually work at surge
protection?
Who say in a surge guide from the IEEE that plug-in suppressors are
effective?
And in a surge guide from the NIST that plug-in suppressors are effective?
Do you know of more reliable sources than the IEEE and NIST?

And you still haven't admitted that UL tests the devices it lists?

Still missing - your source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective - just like westom.
And westom has been looking for years.

I can only conclude that you are a Nazi.

--
bud--

On Jun 18, 3:55 pm, bud-- wrote:
Still missing - your source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective - just like westom.
And westom has been looking for years.

You prove it. Your job is to promote plug-in protectors. You
cannot even post any spec numbers that define protection from each
type of surge. For good reason. To sell scam protectors, lying is
normal. You have been lying for years. Even your own citations show
damage to electronics because the protector is too close to appliances
and too far from earth ground.

Destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules. Where does
that energy dissipate? Bud says that energy just magically
disappears. Reality. Either that energy dissipates harmlessly in
earth - a 'whole house' protector connected within feet to earth
ground. Or that energy is hunting for earth destructively via
appliances.

Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a surge earthed 8000 volts
destructively through a nearby TV. Why? The home was using a plug-in
protector promoted by Bud. The house did not earth via a 'whole
house' protector. Energy was inside the building. Therefore damage.

Where does all that energy dissipate? In hundreds of request, bud
never posts numeric specs that claim protection. Bud never posts those
numeric specs because no plug-in protector claims effective
protection. bud must deny to protect profit margins. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.

It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid to
promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do. Where
are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any. He cannot claim
protection that does not exist.

Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise he
must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers – not
protection.

It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
He cannot claim protection that does not exist.

Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers – not
protection.

Uh... In the MOV?

I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally around
300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above that voltage
heated up the MOV.

Am I missing something?

Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppressors. If
they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said so.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
He cannot claim protection that does not exist.

Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers – not
protection.

Uh... In the MOV?

I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally
around 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above
that voltage heated up the MOV.

Am I missing something?

Ohm's Law.
If the MOV conducts at a low resistance,the power it dissipates will be
minimal.
Thus,the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's shunted to.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Uh... In the MOV?

I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally around
300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above that voltage
heated up the MOV.

Am I missing something?

In your typical plug in suppressor mounted next to the computer
for example. The job of the MOV is to clamp the maximum voltage
across the "protected" outlets. That it does this fairly quickly
is what hopefully protect the equipment, while at the same time
drawing enough current through the house wiring to either pop
the fuse or circuit breaker at the suppressor or back at the
service panel.

What the plug-in suppressors rely on is the impedance (generally
inductive) in the house wiring to limit the rise time of the
surge until the circuit breaker (or fusable parts) have time to
react by opening up.

The term joules can be described as Watt Seconds. And the ability
to deal with it is based on the fault (or surge) being over, or
the circuit breakers upstream open before the device self
destructs.

Whole house protectors work the same way in that they shunt the
current to ground safely before it has a chance to cause a
destructive rise to the rest of the house wiring.

Jeff



--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally
around 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above
that voltage heated up the MOV.

Am I missing something?

Ohm's Law:
If the MOV conducts at a low resistance, the power it dissipates will be
minimal. Thus, the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's
shunted to.

How low is low?

I suspect that's not a complete explanation, but I won't argue at this time.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
He cannot claim protection that does not exist.

Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers ? not
protection.

Uh... In the MOV?

I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally around
300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above that voltage
heated up the MOV.

Am I missing something?

Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppressors. If
they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said so.

hillarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge supression
devices?

Jim Yanik wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
He cannot claim protection that does not exist.
Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers – not
protection.
Uh... In the MOV?

I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally
around 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above
that voltage heated up the MOV.

Am I missing something?

Ohm's Law.
If the MOV conducts at a low resistance,the power it dissipates will be
minimal.
Thus,the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's shunted to.


Bull****. The Mov dissipates (Umov)*I*T, or
Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds.
Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time.
The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting.
Where did you learn about electricity??????
Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV,
and that is specified in the documentation, as in how
many WATTseconds blows it to pieces.
Even then it still might provide protection, although
only once, and then blow the mains fuse.

Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppressors.
If
they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said so.

hillarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge supression
devices?

It was, 20 years ago. I don't think you get the point, though.

Sjouke Burry wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
He cannot claim protection that does not exist.
Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers – not
protection.
Uh... In the MOV?

I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally
around 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above
that voltage heated up the MOV.

Am I missing something?

Ohm's Law.
If the MOV conducts at a low resistance,the power it dissipates will
be minimal.
Thus,the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's shunted
to.


Bull****. The Mov dissipates (Umov)*I*T, or
Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds.
Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time.
The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting.

I never said it did.
the MOV voltage rating is the voltage when it changes state and drops to a
low resistance to shunt the surge to GROUND.
Now,how low a resistance in the conducting state is another matter.
that's dependent on the MOV design/ratings.


Where did you learn about electricity??????

USAF PME School,1971.

Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV,

yes,I said the MOV's dissipation would be "minimal",....compared to the
total energy the MOV was passing to ground.
what energy the MOV dissipates can easily be enough to blow it apart.
I've seen it happen many times.
But the MOV is not dissipating the total energy of the surge with it's
suicide.

and that is specified in the documentation, as in how
many WATTseconds blows it to pieces.
Even then it still might provide protection, although
only once, and then blow the mains fuse.



Of course,the fuse itself can arc over in a lightning strike,as it
can exceed the typical 250v voltage rating of the fuse.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Bull****. The Mov dissipates (Umov)*I*T, or
Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds.
Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time.
The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting.

I never said it did.
the MOV voltage rating is the voltage when it changes
state and drops to a
low resistance to shunt the surge to GROUND.
Now,how low a resistance in the conducting state is
another matter.
that's dependent on the MOV design/ratings.


Where did you learn about electricity??????

USAF PME School,1971.

Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV,

yes,I said the MOV's dissipation would be
"minimal",....compared to the
total energy the MOV was passing to ground.
what energy the MOV dissipates can easily be enough to
blow it apart.
I've seen it happen many times.
But the MOV is not dissipating the total energy of the
surge with it's
suicide.

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It is
a voltage clamp. You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.

David

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppressors.
If
they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said so.

hillarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge supression
devices?

It was, 20 years ago. I don't think you get the point, though.

So what is the point? John Dvorak wrote a story about surge supressors and
how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his CompuAdd 486sx tower?

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test
suppressors.
If they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said
so.

Hilarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge
supression
devices?

It was, 20 years ago. I don't think you get the point, though.

So what is the point? John Dvorak wrote a story about surge supressors and
how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his CompuAdd 486sx tower?

The point is that they were performing lab tests on the suppressors. These
tests included determining the clamping voltage. (I don't remember if they
were tested to destruction.) The tests were presumably performed in
accordance with industry-accepted standards.

westom wrote:
On Jun 18, 3:55 pm, bud-- wrote:
Still missing - your source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective - just like westom.
And westom has been looking for years.

Your job is to promote plug-in protectors.

Poor westom just keeps repeating the same lies, just like Josef Goebbels.

If he had valid technical arguments he would not have to try to
discredit those that expose his drivel.

My only association with surge suppressors is that I have 2 of them.

You
cannot even post any spec numbers that define protection from each
type of surge.

"Each type of surge" is more nonsense. SquareD, amongst others, does not
have specs for "each type of surge".

I provided a link to the specs I have provided in many threads -always
ignored by westom, just like he ignores anything that conflicts with his
religious belief in earthing.

Apparently poor westom believes plug-in suppressors do not work, so he
believes specs cannot possibly exist.

Destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules. Where does
that energy dissipate? Bud says that energy just magically
disappears.

Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from seeing what has been
said in this thread, and numerous other threads.

For incoming power wires, at about 6kV there is arc over from service
busbars to the enclosure. After the arc stabilized the arc is hundreds
of volts. The enclosure is connected to the earthing electrodes, so this
dumps the vast majority of the incoming surge energy to earth. The
neutral (in the US) is also always tied to the system ground at the
service, so energy coming in on the neutral is directly earthed.
Apparently that is all magic for westom.

For a plug-in suppressor, the impedance of the branch circuit wiring
greatly limits the current that can reach the suppressor. That greatly
limits the energy that can reach the suppressor. NIST surge guru
Martzloff looked at the energy that could reach the suppressor and was
surprised that it was 35 joules or less. In most of his tests it was
under 1 joule. That is with service surges up to the maximum that there
is any reasonable probability of occurring.

As Sjouke wrote, the MOV dissipates an energy equal to the clamp voltage
times the current times the time. For a plug-in suppressor the current
is very limited by the branch circuit impedance. And the time is very
short - well under 100 microseconds. Fuses or circuit breakers do not
provide protection because they are nowhere near fast enough - they
won't open during a surge.

Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing a surge - that
reason poor westom believes they do not work. The IEEE surge guide
explains how they work (starting pdf page40). They clamp the voltage on
all wires to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage between all wires
going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment.

Service panel suppressors also work by clamping the voltage - from hot
wires to ground/earthing electrode (and hot-to-hot). Because the current
can be up to 10,000A per hot (essentially zero probability of higher
current, at least for houses) they can dissipate significant energy. But
the vast majority of the energy is dissipated in the earth by the
service earth electrode connection. The largest surges (lightning) are
under 100 microseconds. Suppressors are readily available that will
provide protection. With thousands of amps to the earthing electrode,
the potential of the building "ground" can rise far above "absolute"
earth potential.

Neither service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors protect by
absorbing the surge energy. But in the process of protecting, some of
the energy is absorbed.

MOVs are fast enough to protect from the fastest surge. And if there was
an extremely fast rise time it would be lowered by the impedance of the
source wiring.

All of the above is from NIST expert Martzloff, or other experts in the
field.

westom ignores it all.

Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a surge earthed 8000 volts
destructively through a nearby TV.

The lie repeated. Poor westom tries to make an example that explains
protection say the opposite.

The plug-in suppressor in this IEEE surge guide example protects the TV
connected to it. It lowers the surge voltage at a second TV, although
its job is to protect the equipment connected to it. It is a lie that
the suppressor at TV1 damages 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."

Why?
The house did not earth via a 'whole
house' protector.

In the IEEE example the surge comes in on the cable service, and high
voltage results from a ground wire that is too long. westomn's favored
service panel suppressor would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
IEEE says, for distant entrance points, that "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.

westom's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka
reality).
westom is the poster child for cognitive dissonance.

Still never explained - why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day
when they are hit by lightning?

He is paid to
promote plug-in protectors.

The lie repeated.

But still never seen - any reliable source that agrees with westom that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

The IEEE guide, in particular, is really an excellent source of
information from a reliable source. I really recommend anyone who is
interested in surge protection read it.

--
bud--

On Jun 19, 8:20 pm, "David" wrote:
A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It is
a voltage clamp. You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.

Now do the numbers. How does that hundred joule MOV absorb energy
that is hundreds of thousands of joules? You are reciting the myths
promoted by plug-in protectors.

For example, how to get the protector to last longer? Increase its
joules rating. Then the entire protector absorbs "LESS" energy.
Protector that absorbs a surge is the urban myth promoted by those who
never learned this stuff. This 100 years old technology.

So that energy dissipates harmlessly in earth - not inside the
building - the protector must make a short ('less than 10 foot')
connection to single point earth ground. No protector is protection.
None. A protector is only a connecting device. Either it connects a
20,000 amp surge harmlessly to earth. Or it does nothing. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which those
educated by advertising never learn.

On Jun 19, 12:25 pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
What the plug-in suppressors rely on is the impedance (generally
inductive) in the house wiring to limit the rise time of thesurgeuntil the circuit breaker (or fusable parts) have time to
react by opening up.

No surge protector is too slow. That wiring is why plug-in
protectors are not earthed. And why Bud will not discuss wire
impedance and earth ground.

bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a plug-in protecting earthing
a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. He hopes you do
not grasp the point in his IEEE citation.

So let's put numbers to it. Let's say the plug-in protector and TV
are 50 feet of wire from the breaker box. That means it is less than
0.2 ohms resistance. And maybe 120 ohms impedance. So that protector
will earth a trivial 100 amp surge? 100 amps times 120 ohms means the
protector and TV are at maybe 12,000 volts. Why did the protector
earth that surge 8000 volts through the TV? AC electric wire
impedance meant the surge had to obtain earth 8000 volts destructively
through the TV.

Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on bud's plug-in
protectors? Because telcos can suffer about 100 surges per
thunderstorm. So telcos put a protector as close to earth ground as
possible. And up to 50 meters separated from electronics. That
separation means increases protection. Why? See numbers in that
above paragraph.

Whereas an average homeowner suffers maybe one surge every seven
years. A telco suffers at least 100 with each storm. So telcos do
not locate protectors adjacent to electronics. Telcos always earth
'whole house' protectors for the same reasons it was done 100 year ago
– a low impedance connection to single point ground. Protector must
be as close to earth as possible (lowest impedance to single point
ground) AND works best when distant from electronics.

Learn that no protector works by absorbing energy. That is why the
protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground can
even earth that surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. A
majority only believe the advertising myths - that protectors
magically make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically
disappear. That myth sells plug-in protectors. Any location that
cannot have damage (ie munitions dumps) instead earths a 'whole house'
protector. Then energy never enters a building. Then energy
harmlessly dissipates outside the building in earth ground.

Protection is always about where energy dissipates. IOW a protector
is only as effective as its earth ground. A reality that would harm
bud's profit margins.

"David" wrote in -
september.org:


Bull****. The Mov dissipates (Umov)*I*T, or
Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds.
Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time.
The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting.

I never said it did.
the MOV voltage rating is the voltage when it changes
state and drops to a
low resistance to shunt the surge to GROUND.
Now,how low a resistance in the conducting state is
another matter.
that's dependent on the MOV design/ratings.


Where did you learn about electricity??????

USAF PME School,1971.

Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV,

yes,I said the MOV's dissipation would be
"minimal",....compared to the
total energy the MOV was passing to ground.
what energy the MOV dissipates can easily be enough to
blow it apart.
I've seen it happen many times.
But the MOV is not dissipating the total energy of the
surge with it's
suicide.

Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It is
a voltage clamp.

no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.

You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.

David




totally wrong.
Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest you read it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test
suppressors.
If they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have
said
so.

Hilarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge
supression
devices?

It was, 20 years ago. I don't think you get the point, though.

So what is the point? John Dvorak wrote a story about surge
supressors and how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his
CompuAdd 486sx tower?

The point is that they were performing lab tests on the suppressors.
These tests included determining the clamping voltage. (I don't
remember if they were tested to destruction.) The tests were
presumably performed in accordance with industry-accepted standards.




"clamping" is a misuse of the word WRT surge protectors.
It misleads people,as in "david" s post.

"trigger voltage" might more accurate.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It
is
a voltage clamp.

no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.

You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The
energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.

David




totally wrong.
Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest
you read it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim, I am not going to get into a flame war over this topic.
Maybe you should check this out:

http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm

David

David wrote:
http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm

Amazing coincidence that they act much like the old NE-2 neon
bulb across the antenna leads of old receivers for protection.

They would conduct around 65 volts and suddenly go to near
zero impedance, safely shunting what ever energy on the antenna
line to ground.

And although most receiver inputs couldn't handle a steady state
of 65 volts (or 130 vpp), they could handle them long enough for
the neon bulb to conduct and then shunt them to ground.


Jeff


--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm

David

Hi,

I've been following this thread, and I got to wondering are there any
accepted methods to tell if a surge arrestor setup is still usable as
such? I've got a couple industrial 3-phase units that I'd like to
hook up to protect my incoming power, and though they pass the sniff
test I haven't quite convinced myself to add them to the electrical
panel yet. I only have single phase (in the US), but figure that gives
me a spare module that would just be left disconnected.

Anyone have any recommendations or guidance to lend?

Thanks,
Mike

"David" wrote in -
september.org:



A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It
is
a voltage clamp.

no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.

You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The
energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.

David




totally wrong.
Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest
you read it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim, I am not going to get into a flame war over this topic.
Maybe you should check this out:

http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm

David



did you even READ the wiki article? it appears not.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"David" wrote in -
september.org:



A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It
is
a voltage clamp.

no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.

You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The
energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.

Uh,"passing current to ground" IS passing energy to ground.


David




totally wrong.
Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest
you read it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim, I am not going to get into a flame war over this topic.
Maybe you should check this out:

http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm

David



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_oxide_varistor

Varistors can absorb part of a surge. How much effect this has on risk to
connected equipment depends on the equipment and details of the selected
varistor. Varistors do not absorb a significant percentage of a lightning
strike, as energy that must be conducted elsewhere is many orders of
magnitude greater than what is absorbed by the small device.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So bud wants
to discuss airplanes to avoid reality. Where are those manufacturer
specs that claim protection from each type of surge? NIST and IEEE
say why bud cannot provide them. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. "




Certain ignorant people here keep perpetuating this total LIE. I
won't call them liars because I believe they are not doing it
inttentionally, they just have no understanding of what they are
talking about. This makes them very dangerous as they are spreading
False information which may be read by someone who thinks it is
actually true.

A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes.
It
is
a voltage clamp.

no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.

You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The
energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.

Uh,"passing current to ground" IS passing energy to
ground.


David




totally wrong.
Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I
suggest
you read it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim, I am not going to get into a flame war over this
topic.
Maybe you should check this out:

http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm

David



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_oxide_varistor

Varistors can absorb part of a surge. How much effect this
has on risk to
connected equipment depends on the equipment and details
of the selected
varistor. Varistors do not absorb a significant percentage
of a lightning
strike, as energy that must be conducted elsewhere is many
orders of
magnitude greater than what is absorbed by the small
device.

--
Jim Yanik

This is my final say on this topic. In the quote above, you
assume the section saying that "... energy that must be
conducted elsewhere ..." goes to ground through the MOV.
This is where your error resides. The energy is going
elsewhere but being dissipated somewhere else completely
such as blowing up a transformer. The article should also
use the term dissipated elsewhere to make things clearer.

You also assume that passing current is equivalent to
dissipating energy. Current can *move* energy somewhere, but
electrical energy is only dissipated when the current causes
a voltage drop. A perfect ground will not have a voltage
drop so that is not where the the energy is being
dissipated.

David

"David" wrote in -
september.org:



A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes.
It
is
a voltage clamp.

no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.

You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The
energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.

Uh,"passing current to ground" IS passing energy to
ground.


David




totally wrong.
Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I
suggest
you read it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Jim, I am not going to get into a flame war over this
topic.
Maybe you should check this out:

http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm

David



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_oxide_varistor

Varistors can absorb part of a surge. How much effect this
has on risk to
connected equipment depends on the equipment and details
of the selected
varistor. Varistors do not absorb a significant percentage
of a lightning
strike, as energy that must be conducted elsewhere is many
orders of
magnitude greater than what is absorbed by the small
device.

--
Jim Yanik

This is my final say on this topic. In the quote above, you
assume the section saying that "... energy that must be
conducted elsewhere ..." goes to ground through the MOV.
This is where your error resides. The energy is going
elsewhere but being dissipated somewhere else completely
such as blowing up a transformer. The article should also
use the term dissipated elsewhere to make things clearer.

feel free to edit it.

You also assume that passing current is equivalent to
dissipating energy.


No,that's what YOU assume I said. Wrongly.

Current can *move* energy somewhere, but
electrical energy is only dissipated when the current causes
a voltage drop. A perfect ground will not have a voltage
drop so that is not where the the energy is being
dissipated.

HA,now you're talking about "perfect grounds".Sheesh.
you don't know what you're talking about.

BTW,when a lightning strike hits a ground,it dissipates it's energy -in the
ground-. literally.

It even makes a fulgurite.(fused earth)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com