westom wrote:
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.

And why Bud will not discuss wire
impedance and earth ground.

Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from reading what gets
written. I certainly have written about wire impedance in this thread.

But if westom was not hampered by religious blinders he would read in
the IEEE surge guide that plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by
earthing. They work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to
the ground at the suppressor.


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.

I hope everyone will "grasp the point" in the IEEE example.
- The TV connected to the plug-in suppressor is protected.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."


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.

With minimal reading skills westom would have read that at about 6kV
(US) there is arc-over at the service panel from bus to enclosure/ground
- which is connected to the earthing electrode and neutral. After the
arc is established, the voltage is hundreds of volts. The same thing
happens at receptacles. This is a well established action for people who
are familiar with surge protection.

westom makes up a 100 amp surge on the branch circuit and 120 ohm
impedance - won't happen together.

Why did the protector
earth that surge 8000 volts through the TV?

And the lie repeated - 5th time?

In the IEEE example - of how plug-in suppressors protect - the
suppressor at TV1 causes absolutely NO damage to TV2.


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

Ho-hum - because telco switches are high amp, hard wired, and thousands
of phone circuits would have to go through the plug-in suppressor.


Learn that no protector works by absorbing energy.

True of service panel and plug-in suppressors (but they absorb some
energy while protecting).

If you put a MOV across a relay coil, it protects 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.

The lie repeated - 6th time?

In the IEEE example the surge comes in on the cable service.
westom has not explained how his service panel suppressor would provide
any protection.
That is because it would provide absolutely NO protection.

With separated service entry points the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."

A
majority only believe the advertising myths - that protectors
magically make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically
disappear.

Only magic if you suffer from willful stupidity.

IOW a protector
is only as effective as its earth ground.

Ho-hum - still never explained - why aren't flying airplanes crashing
every day when they are hit by lightning? They must drag an earthing chain.

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?

- 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--

Jim Yanik wrote:
"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.

I agree. The vast majority of energy in a lightning strike is passed on
to the earth.

Assume a surge of 10,000A on a service wire (maximum that has a
reasonable probability), a very good resistance to earth of 10 ohms and
a duration of 100 microseconds. If I am multiplying right that is
100,000 joules dissipated in the earth.

If you had a service panel suppressor with UL let through voltage of
330V (measured at a specified current much lower than 10kA) the actual
voltage across the MOV might be 500V and the energy dissipated for the
same surge would be 500 joules.

Most of the energy that was available at the cloud is dissipated on the
trip down - in heat, light, sound....

In about any lightning strike there are multiple paths to earth -
multiple utility earthing points, multiple houses, ....


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

Nice example.

It even makes a fulgurite.(fused earth)

Jim Yanik wrote:
"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.

MOVs have a smooth, but nonlinear, curve from not conducting at low
voltage to high conduction current at higher voltages. They do not
"trigger" like a neon light. And the voltage across the MOV does not
suddenly decrease, like it would in a neon light (you probably didn't
say it did). "Clamping" is a widely used term, including the wiki
article on MOVs. (Gas discharge tubes are like a neon light, and do
trigger.)

One of the parameters for a MOV is MCOV (maximum continuous operating
voltage) which is the voltage at which the current is 1 mA. The
increase in current is smooth (but very non-linear) above the MCOV, just
like it was smooth (and non-linear) below the MCOV.

(When the MCOV for a MOV decreases 10% it is the defined end of life for
a MOV - referred to in the wiki article.)

A MOV is very much like back-to-back Zener diodes, but does not clamp as
sharply. But MOVs have huge current capacity in a small package.

The clamp voltage that is usually cited is the UL let through voltage
(UL calls it something a little different). This is the voltage at a
specified test surge current. If the surge current goes up, the let
through voltage will be higher (in a non-linear way).

--
bud--

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:39:27 -0500, Jeffrey D Angus
wrote:

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.

We used to test our radios with 117vac on the antenna terminals. While
not a required test, it happened often enough that it was worth
testing and protecting. The AC plug to PL-259 test cable on my cable
rack generated quite a few odd questions.

Neon lamps, MOV's, back to back diodes, PIN diodes, and such are
generally a bad idea in high RF environments. Any non-linear device
between the antenna and the RF amp is going to act like a mixer and
create the dreaded intermodulation products. MOV's and diodes are
particularly bad because they start to slightly conduct at nearly zero
voltage, and increase exponentially with increasing signal. The MOV
also has 100-1000pf of unstable and unpredictable capacitance, which
is not a good thing on the antenna input. The closest approximation
of an ideal protection device are the one-time gas filled spark gaps
used in lightning protectors. No conduction at all until they arc
over. Then, they're dead.

Question:
What's the peak to peak output voltage of a 50 watt transmitter
into 50 ohms?
Answer:
V = 2.828 * 50^2 / 50 = 141 volts p-p
Now, do you REALLY want a device that conducts at 65 volts across the
xmitter antenna terminals?

I actually tried a varistor across the antenna terminals of an HF 150w
PEP xmitter and confirmed the big bang theory.

Hint: Things work differently at 60Hz than at RF frequencies.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jun 20, 1:36*am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
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?

My news reader sees a problem in these postings
..

Mark Waller wrote an article for Byte.
I have his book PC Power Protection from 1988.
Great reading. I should also have that mag article if
anybody is interested. I should look it up.

From worrying too much about protection, Mark is now a Family
Therapist.

greg

On Jun 21, 11:19 am, bud-- wrote:
Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from reading what gets
written. I certainly have written about wire impedance in this thread.

Bud promotes plug-in protectors. It is his job. Either that
protector connects energy harmlessly to earth. Energy absorbed
without damage. Or energy is inside the building - bud's IEEE guide
Page 42 Figure 8 - hunting for earth destructively via appliances.
8000 volts destructively through the TV because bud's miracle
protector cannot absorb destructive surges.

bud's NIST citation also describes bud's "profit center" 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.

No earth ground (bud's high profit protectors) means no effective
protection. Even the NIST says so. All of bud's citations say that.

Meanwhile IEEE Standards (the Red Book) - where the IEEE makes all
recommendations - state what is always necessary for surge protection
- and what bud denies:
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.

Or IEEE Emerald Book:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and bonding connections exist among the
telephone and data equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and
the building grounding electrode system. ...
Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement may result in hazardous potential being
developed between the telephone (data) equipment and other grounded items that personnel may
be near or might simultaneously contact.

Protection is always about where energy dissipates. That means an
effective protector connects short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single
point earth ground. But somehow bud's protectors magically make
energy just disappear? It is what he is paid to promote. It is why
he gets angry. Reality would harm profits.

Surge protection means energy dissipates harmlessly in earth;
outside the building. A protector without that dedicated and short
connection to earth does not claim protection in its numeric specs -
as bud tacitly admits. So bud's protector magically makes that energy
disappear? That is also what bud tacitly claims.

On Jun 20, 3:54*pm, mike wrote:
I've been following this thread, and I got to wondering are there any
accepted methods to tell if asurgearrestor setup is still usable as
such?

Assuming they are MOV based, read MOV datasheets to learn how MOVs
work and obtain relevenant numbers for the test. Perform a 1
milliamp test to confirm these numbers on that protector. This test
is described in some manufacturer application notes.

The test only confirms the protector can conduct. Does not say
anything about what makes a protector effective - the earth ground and
how it connects to earth. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

westom wrote:
On Jun 21, 11:19 am, bud-- wrote:
Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from reading what gets
written. I certainly have written about wire impedance in this thread.

Bud promotes plug-in protectors. It is his job.

westom just continues to repeat the same lies - a la Goebbels.

And the same misrepresentations - a la religious fanaticism. All the
sources westom uses, including even his favorite manufacturers, say
plug-in suppressors are effective.

In particular, the IEEE and NIST surge guides both say plug-in
suppressors are effective. Links have been provided to these reliable
sources.

There are 259,615,938 other web sites, including 23,843,032 by lunatics,
and westom can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

Also 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????

--
bud--

In article , westom wrote:
On Jun 20, 3:54=A0pm, mike wrote:
I've been following this thread, and I got to wondering are there any
accepted methods to tell if asurgearrestor setup is still usable as
such?

Assuming they are MOV based, read MOV datasheets to learn how MOVs
work and obtain relevenant numbers for the test. Perform a 1
milliamp test to confirm these numbers on that protector. This test
is described in some manufacturer application notes.

The test only confirms the protector can conduct. Does not say
anything about what makes a protector effective - the earth ground and
how it connects to earth. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.


IEEE 587 and UL 1449 Talks of 3-6KV and 500 amps typical
test produces eventual failure.

greg

In article , GS wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:36=A0am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppress=
ors.
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 supres=
sion
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 an=
d
how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his CompuAdd 486sx tower?

My news reader sees a problem in these postings
..

Mark Waller wrote an article for Byte.
I have his book PC Power Protection from 1988.
Great reading. I should also have that mag article if
anybody is interested. I should look it up.

From worrying too much about protection, Mark is now a Family
Therapist.


Here is the article.

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/waller.pdf

In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article ,
GS wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:36=A0am, Cydrome Leader wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppress=
ors.
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 supres=
sion
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 an=
d
how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his CompuAdd 486sx tower?

My news reader sees a problem in these postings
..

Mark Waller wrote an article for Byte.
I have his book PC Power Protection from 1988.
Great reading. I should also have that mag article if
anybody is interested. I should look it up.

From worrying too much about protection, Mark is now a Family
Therapist.


Here is the article.

http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/waller.pdf


If its not clear, the first thing a great surpressor must have, is an isolation transformer.

greg

westom wrote:

Assuming they are MOV based, read MOV datasheets to learn how MOVs
work and obtain relevenant numbers for the test. Perform a 1
milliamp test to confirm these numbers on that protector. This test
is described in some manufacturer application notes.


Been awhile since I looked inside, I'll have to open 'em back up and
see what numbers are on them (if any, I can't remember).

The test only confirms the protector can conduct. Does not say
anything about what makes a protector effective - the earth ground and
how it connects to earth. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Makes sense, I'll confirm that the service entrance ground is in good
condition, too.

Thanks,
Mike

On Jun 21, 1:40 pm, bud-- wrote:
westom just continues to repeat the same lies - a la Goebbels.

An honest bud would simply post numeric specs to prove what he
claims. He cannot. No plug-in protector claims that protection from
each type of surge. bud is a promoter. He again posts insults
because his protectors do not claim protection in numeric specs.
Honesty is not bud.

What do his citations show? Page 42 Figure 8. A protector too far
from earth ground and too close to TVs earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through that TV. IEEE brochure Page 42 Figure 8
demonstrates why high profit plug-in protectors do not even claim
protection in numeric specs. Bud’s job is to lie and insult so that
you will ignore what he cannot provide - effective protection.

Where are those numeric specs that claim surge protection? bud
promotes these things – and still cannot find those numeric specs.

westom wrote:
On Jun 21, 1:40 pm, bud-- wrote:
westom just continues to repeat the same lies - a la Goebbels.

An honest bud would simply post numeric specs to prove what he
claims.

An honest westom would admit that specs have been provided often in
other threads, and through a link in this thread. And also by other
people. Always ignored.

An honest westom would admit that both the IEEE and NIST surge guides
say plug-in suppressors are effective.

An honest westom would not try to make sources say the opposite of what
they actually say.

An honest westom would admit he can't find another lunatic that agrees
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

An honest westom could answer 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 don't you ever answer questions westom???

--
bud--

On Jun 9, 3:20*pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
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

Well, you can't say inexpensive andGraingerin the same sentence.
You'll find the exact same products elsewhere for 25-50% less.

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 finally hooked up a suppressor to the main box. I ordered the item
from Drillspot, and
received it from GRAINGER !

I also fooled around with my lightning arrestors on the deck outside.
I want to keep surge protector also in the separate garage. I also
need
to put something in my LED lighting string around the house. That
would be expensive to replace and difficult.

In article , GS wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:20=A0pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
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..................
=A0http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=3Dsearch

Well, you can't say inexpensive andGraingerin the same sentence.
You'll find the exact same products elsewhere for 25-50% less.

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 finally hooked up a suppressor to the main box. I ordered the item
from Drillspot, and
received it from GRAINGER !

I also fooled around with my lightning arrestors on the deck outside.
I want to keep surge protector also in the separate garage. I also
need
to put something in my LED lighting string around the house. That
would be expensive to replace and difficult.


I find 90 volt gas discharge tubes. I could probably
use a lower voltage device. I don't know what else would be
self resetting.

greg