On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:23:59 GMT, "Toller" wrote:


"lee h" wrote in message
et...
chicagofan wrote:
My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
protector pulling it out of the wall.

In the last sixty years, I've unplugged many an AC cord, but I've
yet to 'leave parts of the plug' in the outlet! I hope you mean by
'pulling it out of the wall', you aren't pulling on the AC cord itself?
Rather than grasping the plug near the outlet and gently but firmly
unplugging it?

And wiggle it if it is hard to get out, pull on one side, then the
other. Most plugs from computer stuff are really big and easy to get
a hold of. I have lamp plugs that are 50 years old and only a
half-inch deep and they might be hard to grip.

Just wondering.

I was wondering about that also, I have never heard of anything breaking off
in the outlet!

I'm wondering too. And what is a three-pronged data cable? What kind
of data cable is plugged into the wall in the average house?

30 years ago lighting struck the building across the street from my office
and destroyed one of the 9 computer monitors in my office. That is the only
damage I have ever seen from lighting, despite never unplugging anything. I

I don't unplug anything either. I may have lost an internal modem via
a surge on the phone line, or maybe it broke for some other reason.

But I did have a girlfriend who lived on a wooded lot with a lot of
trees just outside her property, in Baltimore. She said that she lost
two fancier than average telephones, a fancy microwave, and the
refrigerator in one lighting storm. I replaced the electronic module
for the microwave but it was expensive, 30 to 50% of the cost of a new
microwave. 60 to 100% of the cost of the microwave used, but I've
never understood that comparison since she had no way to buy it used,
unless she wanted to spend weeks going to yard sales and looking at
ads etc.

Despite all that she lost, no one moves the fridge to unplug it in
every storm, and the odds are so low that I don't blame them.

Oh, I may have also lost the control panel for my home burglar alarm
because of lightning, but maybe it was some other cause. One morning
when I was leaving for work, there was a little smoke coming out of
it.

Lightning doesn't usually hit the house, or its damage is really
visible. It hits a tree outside and induces currents in a wire going
into the house.

Lighning rods don't conduct the lightning to ground. They are so thin
they'd melt. IIRC they conduct to ground the negagive charge that
would build up at the top of the house, and the lightning isn't
attracted to the house anymore. Something like that.

am wondering just why she is unplugging everything. (I expect it did a bit
more damage in the building it hit; it is also the only lighting strike I
have ever seen hit.)

My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
protector pulling it out of the wall.

Can anyone tell me what it would cost *roughly* to replace each box or
whatever is required? Or even if that is going to help, and make these
small appliances and data cables any easier to unplug? [That is, hiring
a professional electrician to do it.] TIA as always...

Barbara

snug fitting electrical receptacles are actually a good thing and you
will find commercial grade receptacles of higher quality are generally
"snugger" fitting. They will break in over time though.
If the outlets look new and the only problem is the retention force,
i'd keep them as is.

If you are powering off your equipment due to thunderstorm activity,
consider hiring an electrician to install a lightning arrestor at your
electrical panel. this will shunt a lightning strike to earth ground,
protecting your household wiring. This combined with power strips of
sufficient joule rating should help protect your sensitive electronic
equipmetn from all but the worst direct lightning strikes.

hope this helps.

chicagofan wrote:
My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
protector pulling it out of the wall.

Can anyone tell me what it would cost *roughly* to replace each box or
whatever is required? Or even if that is going to help, and make these
small appliances and data cables any easier to unplug? [That is, hiring
a professional electrician to do it.] TIA as always...

Barbara

chicagofan wrote:

My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
protector pulling it out of the wall.

Can anyone tell me what it would cost *roughly* to replace each box or
whatever is required? Or even if that is going to help, and make these
small appliances and data cables any easier to unplug? [That is, hiring
a professional electrician to do it.] TIA as always...

Barbara


You might try putting a little smear of "dielectric grease" on the
prongs of those plugs so that it lubricates the inside of the female
recepticals.

You can get that kind of grease at auto supply stores.

HTH,

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...
chicagofan wrote:

My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without so
much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and video
stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge protector
pulling it out of the wall.

Can anyone tell me what it would cost *roughly* to replace each box or
whatever is required? Or even if that is going to help, and make these
small appliances and data cables any easier to unplug? [That is, hiring a
professional electrician to do it.] TIA as always...

Barbara


You might try putting a little smear of "dielectric grease" on the prongs
of those plugs so that it lubricates the inside of the female recepticals.

You can get that kind of grease at auto supply stores.

I'd recommend getting it from an electrical supply, or you may wind up with
wheel bearing grease


HTH,

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

chicagofan wrote:
My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
protector pulling it out of the wall.

In the last sixty years, I've unplugged many an AC cord, but I've
yet to 'leave parts of the plug' in the outlet! I hope you mean by
'pulling it out of the wall', you aren't pulling on the AC cord itself?
Rather than grasping the plug near the outlet and gently but firmly
unplugging it?

Just wondering.

lee

"lee h" wrote in message
t...
chicagofan wrote:
My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
protector pulling it out of the wall.

In the last sixty years, I've unplugged many an AC cord, but I've
yet to 'leave parts of the plug' in the outlet! I hope you mean by
'pulling it out of the wall', you aren't pulling on the AC cord itself?
Rather than grasping the plug near the outlet and gently but firmly
unplugging it?

Just wondering.

I was wondering about that also, I have never heard of anything breaking off
in the outlet!

30 years ago lighting struck the building across the street from my office
and destroyed one of the 9 computer monitors in my office. That is the only
damage I have ever seen from lighting, despite never unplugging anything. I
am wondering just why she is unplugging everything. (I expect it did a bit
more damage in the building it hit; it is also the only lighting strike I
have ever seen hit.)

chicagofan wrote:
My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
protector pulling it out of the wall.

Can anyone tell me what it would cost *roughly* to replace each box or
whatever is required? Or even if that is going to help, and make
these small appliances and data cables any easier to unplug? [That
is, hiring a professional electrician to do it.] TIA as always...

Barbara

A whole-house surge protector is indicated. About $50.

It attaches to the distribution system at the circuit-breaker box.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:23:59 GMT, "Toller" wrote:


In the last sixty years, I've unplugged many an AC cord, but I've
yet to 'leave parts of the plug' in the outlet! I hope you mean by
'pulling it out of the wall', you aren't pulling on the AC cord itself?
Rather than grasping the plug near the outlet and gently but firmly
unplugging it?

Just wondering.

I was wondering about that also, I have never heard of anything breaking off
in the outlet!

It sure does sound like the OP is pulling the cord and not the plug.

In article , "RBM" rbm2(remove wrote:

"Jeff Wisnia" wrote in message
...

You might try putting a little smear of "dielectric grease" on the prongs
of those plugs so that it lubricates the inside of the female recepticals.

You can get that kind of grease at auto supply stores.

I'd recommend getting it from an electrical supply, or you may wind up with
wheel bearing grease

Or simpler still, in the electrical department at Home Depot, Lowe's, Ace
Hardware, etc. -- you're looking for "OxGard".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:19:06 -0400, mm
wrote:

[snip]


I don't unplug anything either. I may have lost an internal modem via
a surge on the phone line, or maybe it broke for some other reason.


I remember several cases of losing computer equipment during a
thunderstorm. All of them were modems (connected to phoneline). That's
ONE reason why I prefer external modems.

[snip]
--
76 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligable. Early
in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:19:06 -0400, mm
wrote:

[snip]

I don't unplug anything either. I may have lost an internal modem via
a surge on the phone line, or maybe it broke for some other reason.


I remember several cases of losing computer equipment during a
thunderstorm. All of them were modems (connected to phoneline). That's
ONE reason why I prefer external modems.


The NIST has a guide on surges and surge protection at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
most frequently damaged by lightning is
computers with a modem connection
TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
connections).
All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

One of the ways to protect against high voltage between signal an power
is to have a *short* 'ground' wire from the phone, cable, ... entry
protectors to the earthing wire at the power service. With any large
surge current to earth, the building 'ground' will lift far above
'absolute' ground. You want the 'ground' for phone, cable, power to lift
together.

When using a plug-in suppressor, all interconnected equipment needs to
be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires
need to go through the suppressor. External connections, like phone,
also need to go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through
the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires.

-------------------
If the plug on a plug-in suppressor is damaged it can be replaced. The
suppressor doesn't have to be junked.


--
bud--

Terry wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:23:59 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

In the last sixty years, I've unplugged many an AC cord, but I've
yet to 'leave parts of the plug' in the outlet! I hope you mean by
'pulling it out of the wall', you aren't pulling on the AC cord itself?
Rather than grasping the plug near the outlet and gently but firmly
unplugging it?

Just wondering.

I was wondering about that also, I have never heard of anything breaking off
in the outlet!

It sure does sound like the OP is pulling the cord and not the plug.


LOL... creeping senility is a problem, but that's one thing I haven't
done. The prong of the left side of 2 plugs now, have been left in the
wall outlet... pulling on the plug normally.
bj

Doug Miller wrote:
"RBM" rbm2(remove wrote:
"Jeff Wisnia" wrote

You might try putting a little smear of "dielectric grease" on the prongs
of those plugs so that it lubricates the inside of the female recepticals.

You can get that kind of grease at auto supply stores.

I'd recommend getting it from an electrical supply, or you may wind up with
wheel bearing grease

Or simpler still, in the electrical department at Home Depot, Lowe's, Ace
Hardware, etc. -- you're looking for "OxGard".


Thanks to all of you who suggested this. I've made a note of this.
Home Depot is nearby.
bj

bud-- wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
mm wrote:
[snip]

I don't unplug anything either. I may have lost an internal modem via
a surge on the phone line, or maybe it broke for some other reason.


I remember several cases of losing computer equipment during a
thunderstorm. All of them were modems (connected to phoneline). That's
ONE reason why I prefer external modems.

I've lost 2 motherboards, 2 surge protectors and 2 VCRS, not at the same
time.


The NIST has a guide on surges and surge protection at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

Thanks for this...

-------------------
If the plug on a plug-in suppressor is damaged it can be replaced. The
suppressor doesn't have to be junked.

I didn't know this, but I'd probably have to pay more to have it
repaired than it's worth. Thanks for your reply.
bj

Joseph Meehan wrote:

"chicagofan" wrote:
Can anyone tell me what it would cost *roughly* to replace each box or
whatever is required? Or even if that is going to help?


In a home only 20 years old, you should not be having a problem. Of
course you should expect that they used the cheapest outlets they could
find. Replacing them with quality heavy duty outlets would be a good
idea. The cost would be something like $2.50 plus labor for each
outlet. The time should not be long for each outlet, but the cost per
hour varies greatly from one area to another. You will need to ask for
some estimates from local electricians. Count the number of outlets you
need replaced (doing all of them might not be a bad idea) and then get
on the phone.

I was thinking about doing them all, based on the replies I got.


Now about unplugging all these devices. With a proper modern wiring,
it should not be necessary to unplug all those devices every time. I
might suggest buying a few quality surge protectors and check out their
warranty. Many include insurance for any equipment plugged into them so
if the worse happens and the equipment is fried, you get a replacement.

When my computers were fried, I looked into those warranties and they
required me to ship them my computer to be fixed, which I couldn't do
without. Since that time, I started unplugging it all when I was here.


Always remember to keep all your personal files backed up.

I finally learned that lesson and bought an external hard drive for
backup. Thanks so much for the estimate.


To Malto and HeyBub... I have considered the whole house surge
protection, but when I looked into it with my power company... their
service seemed to have so many exclusions, I wondered what it did cover.

If I knew a *reputable* electrician, I would do this. Is there an
electrical society or something whose referrals mean something?

I'll keep asking around, and see if I can find someone who has had this
done. Thanks so much for all the responses and advice everyone.
bj

I've lost 2 motherboards, 2 surge protectors and 2 VCRS, not at the same
time.

We had two severe thunderstorms about 2 weeks apart. We lost a total of 3
motherboards. In the second incident, a new motherboard was taken out.
That's convinced me to: 1) just buy a new computer than screw about with MB
replacement; and 2) get UPS for each computer. The main risk to our
machines is now just the network cable. If we go wireless, we should be
safe from just about anything.

On Oct 9, 9:19 am, mm wrote:
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:23:59 GMT, "Toller" wrote:

"lee h" wrote in message
et...
chicagofan wrote:
My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
protector pulling it out of the wall.

In the last sixty years, I've unplugged many an AC cord, but I've
yet to 'leave parts of the plug' in the outlet! I hope you mean by
'pulling it out of the wall', you aren't pulling on the AC cord itself?
Rather than grasping the plug near the outlet and gently but firmly
unplugging it?

And wiggle it if it is hard to get out, pull on one side, then the
other. Most plugs from computer stuff are really big and easy to get
a hold of. I have lamp plugs that are 50 years old and only a
half-inch deep and they might be hard to grip.

Just wondering.

I was wondering about that also, I have never heard of anything breaking off
in the outlet!

I'm wondering too. And what is a three-pronged data cable? What kind
of data cable is plugged into the wall in the average house?



30 years ago lighting struck the building across the street from my office
and destroyed one of the 9 computer monitors in my office. That is the only
damage I have ever seen from lighting, despite never unplugging anything. I

I don't unplug anything either. I may have lost an internal modem via
a surge on the phone line, or maybe it broke for some other reason.

But I did have a girlfriend who lived on a wooded lot with a lot of
trees just outside her property, in Baltimore. She said that she lost
two fancier than average telephones, a fancy microwave, and the
refrigerator in one lighting storm. I replaced the electronic module
for the microwave but it was expensive, 30 to 50% of the cost of a new
microwave. 60 to 100% of the cost of the microwave used, but I've
never understood that comparison since she had no way to buy it used,
unless she wanted to spend weeks going to yard sales and looking at
ads etc.

Despite all that she lost, no one moves the fridge to unplug it in
every storm, and the odds are so low that I don't blame them.

Oh, I may have also lost the control panel for my home burglar alarm
because of lightning, but maybe it was some other cause. One morning
when I was leaving for work, there was a little smoke coming out of
it.

Lightning doesn't usually hit the house, or its damage is really
visible. It hits a tree outside and induces currents in a wire going
into the house.

Lighning rods don't conduct the lightning to ground. They are so thin
they'd melt. IIRC they conduct to ground the negagive charge that
would build up at the top of the house, and the lightning isn't
attracted to the house anymore. Something like that.

am wondering just why she is unplugging everything. (I expect it did a bit
more damage in the building it hit; it is also the only lighting strike I
have ever seen hit.)

Hi,

I thought that a lightning rod system *would* conduct a lighting bolt
to ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod. I had a system
installed on my house by these guys and the cables looked sort of
chunky in size. http://www.alrci.com/faq.php.

Warmest regards, Mike.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:57:29 -0400, "John Gilmer"
wrote:



I've lost 2 motherboards, 2 surge protectors and 2 VCRS, not at the same
time.

We had two severe thunderstorms about 2 weeks apart. We lost a total of 3
motherboards. In the second incident, a new motherboard was taken out.

How many of those systems had internal modems (some internal device
connected to a phoneline)?

That's convinced me to: 1) just buy a new computer than screw about with MB
replacement; and 2) get UPS for each computer.

And don't use internal modems.

The main risk to our
machines is now just the network cable. If we go wireless, we should be
safe from just about anything.


Yes, although wireless does have other significant disadvantages
(slower, less reliable, less secure... etc...).


--
70 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"God was invented by man for a reason, that
reason is no longer applicable."

Jeff Wisnia wrote:

"Stuck" plugs

You might try putting a little smear of "dielectric grease" on the
prongs of those plugs so that it lubricates the inside of the female
recepticals.

You can get that kind of grease at auto supply stores.

Isn't "dielectric grease" an *insulator? Wouldn't it be
contraindicated for use with outlets?

Some kind of conductive grease/lubricant would seem to be a
better choice. Or am I posting too late at night?


PB

On Oct 9, 3:19 pm, mm wrote:

Lighning rods don't conduct the lightning to ground. They are so thin
they'd melt. IIRC they conduct to ground the negagive charge that
would build up at the top of the house, and the lightning isn't
attracted to the house anymore. Something like that.

That's a common misconception, based on the average 30,000 amp
estimate of a lightning strike and trying to figure wire size.

But it's not a steady state current. It's a sharply dampled sinusoid,
and #10 wire is more than adequate for any expected strike. Here in
Europe everybody uses 3/8 inch solid rod (or metric equivalent) but it
is no more protective.

On Oct 16, 2:57 am, "John Gilmer" wrote:
We had two severe thunderstorms about 2 weeks apart. We lost a total of 3
motherboards. In the second incident, a new motherboard was taken out.
That's convinced me to: 1) just buy a new computer than screw about with MB
replacement; and 2) get UPS for each computer. The main risk to our
machines is now just the network cable. If we go wireless, we should be
safe from just about anything.

Now review that NIST discussion. What does a protector do? Page 8
of 24:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm. So
a name that makes sense would be "surge diverter"
but it was not picked.

Where does that UPS 'divert' a surge to. Effective protectors are
located where wires enter the building. Your computer already has
significant internal protection. Anything a plug-in protector might do
is already inside that computer. Internal protection was overwhelmed
because you let a surge enter the building. Now that UPS will somehow
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? Of course not.
That also is not what the NIST says effective protectors do.

Your phone line must already have a 'whole house' protector
installed free by the telco. Your cable needs no protector because it
can be earthed without any protector. Inspect both. Do they make the
also required 'less than 10 foot' connection to a common earthing
electrode?

Your cable company will even recommend removing plug-in protectors
or a UPS on their cable. Cable for protection is earthed where it
enters the building. That protector will only degrade cable signals -
provide no effective protection. In each case, what defines
protection? The NIST document says an effective protector *diverts*
to earth ground.

Well that UPS has maybe a paltry 300 joules. That is near zero.
But near zero protection is enough to claim "IT CONTAINS PROTECTION
FROM DIRECT LIGHTNING STRIKES". Myths like this are widespread and
encouraged routinely by Bud.

Meanwhile, what is the most common source of surge damage? Incoming
on AC mains. Wires that are most exposed at the street. Just like
lightning striking antennas atop the Empire State Building, your AC
wires carry a direct lightning strike into the motherboard. This
because the surge was not earth where it entered the building - at the
circuit breaker box.

That box already should contain a 'less than 10 foot' earthing
connection. If not, then a new earthing electrode must be installed
to meet post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. No earth
ground means ... well what does the NIST say? It *diverts* a surge to
earth ground. And you have no (insufficient) earthing? What defines
an effective protector? Its earthing. Where is the surge energy
dissipated? In earth. Will a protector or UPS absorb that energy
that 3 miles of sky could not stop? Of course not. Only place that
surge energy gets harmlessly dissipated is in earth.

Install only one 'whole house' protector on AC mains with that
short connection to earth. Massively less money and protection that
actually can earth surges. Things even more important than a
computer (furnace controls, bathroom and kitchen GFCIs, smoke
detectors) are also protected. Protected by a device that far exceeds
what the UPS even claims to accomplish. Did you notice the UPS does
not even make surge protector claims in numeric specifications? If it
provides numbers, you might see 'near zero' protection.

A protector that has no earthing is massively profitable AND does
not even claim to protect from the type of surge that typically
damages computer motherboards. Don't take my word for it. Where is
each type of surge defined AND numbers for that protection? A UPS
makes no such claims. Somehow a relay that takes tens of
milliseconds to open will stop a surge that does damage in
microseconds? That is how UPS protection works?

Install one 'whole house' protector. Verify earthing for telephone
and cable TV protection exists and is properly installed. If
necessary, get building earthing upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990
code requirements. What does the NIST says protector does? It
*diverts* a surge to earth ground. How does it do that if you
earthing is missing or insufficient?

Why do cable companies recommend removing a protector from their
cable? Protector has no earthing - does ineffective protection - and
degrades TV signal. Every protector as noted in that NIST citation is
only as good as its earth ground. No earth ground means no place for
surge energy to be diverted - no effective protection.

One 'whole house' protector does far more than any protector
adjacent to electronics - at tens of times less money. Get your
earthing inspected or upgraded. Get one 'whole house' protector for
everything. Verify your cable and telephone protector are properly
installed. Or waste money on devices that will not even claim to
provide that protection - in numeric specs?

Any wire that is not earthed (by direct connection or protector)
where it enters the building means no effective protection. There is
no 'magic box' protector. Protection even in the early 20th Century
has always been defined by earthing. The effective protector makes a
'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground ... to *divert* the
surge.

On Oct 18, 6:18 am, TimR wrote:
That's a common misconception, based on the average 30,000 amp
estimate of a lightning strike and trying to figure wire size.
But it's not a steady state current. It's a sharply dampled sinusoid,
and #10 wire is more than adequate for any expected strike.

TimR has accurately defined why so little wire can conduct such
massive surges. Electrical Engineering Times has two articles
entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" at:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807127
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807830

This discussion is based in engineering principles and with
numbers. Notice how much current is carried by an 18 gauge wire? If
I remember, 61,000 amps. Wires used for AC power would have maybe
four times that capacity.

BTW, also notice everything defined for surge protection. Notice
the article never discusses plug-in protectors or a UPS. This
professional engineering trade rag is not selling hype and myth. Both
articles discuss the only thing required for surge protection -
earthing and connections to earthing.

What is a protector? A connecting device to earth ground. It must
*divert* a surge to earth. But earth ground defines that protection.
This engineer author discusses wire size to conduct lightning to
earth, how wires must be routed, why that connection must be so short,
AND of course the most important part of surge protection - the earth
ground electrode. Protection of electronics is defined by the most
critical component in any surge protection system - earth ground.
This engineering article on lightning protection discusses what most
important component? Earthing.

On Oct 18, 6:18 am, TimR wrote:
That's a common misconception, based on the average 30,000 amp
estimate of a lightning strike and trying to figure wire size.
But it's not a steady state current. It's a sharply dampled sinusoid,
and #10 wire is more than adequate for any expected strike.

TimR has accurately defined why so little wire can conduct such
massive surges. Electrical Engineering Times has two articles
entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" at:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807127
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807830

This discussion is based in engineering principles and with
numbers. Notice how much current is carried by an 18 gauge wire? If
I remember, 61,000 amps. Wires used for AC power would have maybe
four times that capacity.

BTW, also notice everything defined for surge protection. Notice
the article never discusses plug-in protectors or a UPS. This
professional engineering trade rag is not selling hype and myth. Both
articles discuss the only thing required for surge protection -
earthing and connections to earthing.

What is a protector? A connecting device to earth ground. It must
*divert* a surge to earth. But earth ground defines that protection.
This engineer author discusses wire size to conduct lightning to
earth, how wires must be routed, why that connection must be so short,
AND of course the most important part of surge protection - the earth
ground electrode. Protection of electronics is defined by the most
critical component in any surge protection system - earth ground.
This engineering article on lightning protection discusses what most
important component? Earthing.

w_tom wrote:
On Oct 16, 2:57 am, "John Gilmer" wrote:
We had two severe thunderstorms about 2 weeks apart. We lost a total of 3
motherboards. In the second incident, a new motherboard was taken out.
That's convinced me to: 1) just buy a new computer than screw about with MB
replacement; and 2) get UPS for each computer. The main risk to our
machines is now just the network cable. If we go wireless, we should be
safe from just about anything.

Now review that NIST discussion. What does a protector do? Page 8
of 24:

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".

A second excellent guide on surges and surge protection from the IEEE is at:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
The IEEE guide also says plug-in suppressors are effective.


Your cable needs no protector because it
can be earthed without any protector.

Needs no protector? The IEEE guide notes that the voltage between cable
center conductor and sheath is limited by the breakdown of F-connectors
which is typically 2-4,000V. The guide notes that connected equipment
can be damaged at those voltages. Plug-in suppressors will likely clamp
the voltage to a reasonable level.

Do they make the
also required 'less than 10 foot' connection to a common earthing
electrode?

The concern is not distance to common electrode but distance from phone,
cable entry protector to the earthing wire at the power service.
Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST
guide, 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."

The IEEE guide says:
"If the cable, satellite, or phone cables do not enter the building near
the service entrance, the only effective way of protecting the equipment
is to use a multiport protector."

Will a protector or UPS absorb that energy
that 3 miles of sky could not stop? Of course not. Only place that
surge energy gets harmlessly dissipated is in earth.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains
earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).


Install only one 'whole house' protector on AC mains with that
short connection to earth.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea. What does the NIST guide say?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
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."

Where is
each type of surge defined AND numbers for that protection?

Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N.
That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.


Any wire that is not earthed (by direct connection or protector)
where it enters the building means no effective protection.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

w_ has never answered:
- 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"?

–
bud--

Bud's citations show how a plug-in protector works and why it will
even contribute to damage of the motherboard. In facilities that
require protection (ie your telephone Central Office with a computer
connected to overhead wires all over town), Bud's solution is not
used. They need protection; not enriching a manufacturer. Where
failure is not acceptable, plug-in protectors are not used. Bud's
plug-in protectors do not even claim, with numbers, to provide
protection. The NIST defines how it might work and then warns why
plug-in protectors are not effective:
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Bud recommends protectors that don't have effective earthing. That
was even explained in that Electrical Engineering Times article
entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".
Wire has impedance. The 'whole house' protector with a 'less than 10
foot' connection to earth can divert a surge to earth. Where is
lightning energy dissipated? In a protector? Yes, if fire is an
acceptable option. Energy must be dissipated in earth which is why
effective protectors have that short and dedicated earthing
connection.

Bud will avoid ALL discussion about earthing. His protectors have
no effective earthing. A $3 power strip with some $0.10 parts sells
for $25 or $150. With such massive profits, then truth becomes a
victim.

Undersizing makes it even more profitable. Another problem with
protectors that are missing that earthing connection - these 'scary
pictures':
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc

Same reason explains a Boston fire on 28 Sept :
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
"Fire rips through apartment home to college students"
The two alarm fire engulfed an apartment building on Louis Prang Street.
The fire was sparked by a surge protector on the second floor.

Ask Bud for specifications that list each type of surge AND numbers
for protection from each surge? Numbers do not exist. When
challenged to provide those numbers, Bud resorted to mockery and
insults. But then profits are at risk.

Bud's two citations both define why plug-in protectors cannot
accomplish what one 'whole house' protector does. So where does the
surge energy get dissipated? In those scary pictures? Effective
protectors dissipate lightning energy harmlessly in earth - without
those scary pictures. Effective protectors make surges irrelevant so
that a protector remains functional and the human never even knew a
surge existed. Just another reason why responsible homeowners instead
earth one 'whole house' protector. Spend less money for superior
protection.

Bud's second citation shows a plug-in protector too far from earth
ground and too close to appliances. Therefore it earths 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. What kind of
protector is that? Ungrounded. That is what Bud promotes. Why does
the article from Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting
Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" not discuss plug-in
protectors? It is about surge protection - not scams. Protection is
completely about earthing.

Plug-in protectors don't have that earthing connection. Plug-in
protectors may be so grossly undersized (to increase profits) as to
even create those 'scary pictures'. Responsible engineering always
require earthing for protection. Your own telco does not use what Bud
recommends for the same reasons. Profits are at risk if you learn why
one 'whole house' protector does so much and costs less money. The
effective solution is a protector with a 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth ground. That's one 'whole house' protector
without risk in those 'scary pictures'.

Distance to the earthing electrode is critical - which is why
Electrical Engineering Times provides a formula for wire impedance.
You need not perform that calculation. One 'whole house' protector
with a 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection means ignoring the
$3000 of plug-in protectors that Bud recommends.

On Oct 21, 1:50 am, bud-- wrote:
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".

A second excellent guide on surges and surge protection from the IEEE is at:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
The IEEE guide also says plug-in suppressors are effective.
...

Needs no protector? The IEEE guide notes that the voltage between cable
center conductor and sheath is limited by the breakdown of F-connectors
which is typically 2-4,000V. The guide notes that connected equipment
can be damaged at those voltages. Plug-in suppressors will likely clamp
the voltage to a reasonable level.
...

The concern is not distance to common electrode but distance from phone,
cable entry protector to the earthing wire at the power service.
Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST
guide, 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."

The IEEE guide says:
"If the cable, satellite, or phone cables do not enter the building near
the service entrance, the only effective way of protecting the equipment
is to use a multiport protector."
...

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains
earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
...

Service panel suppressors are a good idea. What does the NIST guide say?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
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."
...

Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N.
That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.
...

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

w_ has never answered:
- 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"?

w_tom wrote:

The NIST defines how it might work and then warns why
plug-in protectors are not effective:

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? Repeating:
“They are ‘the easiest solution’.”
and:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
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."

With no valid technical arguments w_ has to twist what the NIST says.


Bud recommends protectors ....

I recommend only accurate information. Read the guides and install what
you want.


Bud will avoid ALL discussion about earthing. His protectors have
no effective earthing.

Repeating:
“The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or
stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

A $3 power strip with some $0.10 parts sells
for $25 or $150.

One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000 A and 1475 Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.

Undersizing makes it even more profitable.

"Undersizing" is a red herring. Suppressors with very high ratings are
readily available.

Another problem with
protectors that are missing that earthing connection - these 'scary
pictures':
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has are pathetic scare tactics.


Same reason explains a Boston fire on 28 Sept :

What is the source of the article? Who said the surge suppressor was the
cause? Why? Was it UL listed or cheap unlisted crap? Was it made before
1998?


Ask Bud for specifications that list each type of surge AND numbers
for protection from each surge? Numbers do not exist.

Repeating:
“Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N.
That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.”

Lacking technical arguments w_ has to invent “each type of surge”.
w_’s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does not list
“each type of surge”.


Bud's second citation shows a plug-in protector too far from earth
ground and too close to appliances. Therefore it earths 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. What kind of
protector is that?

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service ‘ground’ is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.



Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective. Read the sources.

As always, w_ has still not found another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on
his religious belief in earthing.

w_ has never answered:
- 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
Can’t even answer simple questions w_???


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.


–
bud--

Did Bud forget to mention a plug-in protector protects from one
irrelevant type of surge? That is the point. His citation shows a
plug-in protector earthing an 8000 volt surge destructively through an
adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. It had no dedicated earthing path.
It cannot clamp to nothing. Where did that surge energy get
dissipiated? No dedicated earthing; so it earthed (clamped) surge
energy through an appliance. Bud calls that effective protection and
previously said the homeowner should buy $3000 of protectors for
everything.

Meanwhile, eliminate all plug-in protectors, install one 'whole
house' protector from responsible manufacturers, and upgrade earthing
to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements
(did Bud also forget to mention that?) to have complete and effective
protection.

Why do telcos in every town everywhere not use Bud's
recommendation? Required is protection that works, does not waste
money, and clamps (shunts, connects, diverts) surge energy into
earth. Why does the US Air Force instruction manual demand only
'whole house' protectors?
Install the surge protection ... where the
conductor enters the interior of the facility.

Meanwhile where is any plug-in protector spec that lists each type
of surge AND numbers for that protection? Why does Bud routinely fear
that question maybe 400 times now? Plug-in protectors do not claim to
protect from a type of surge that typically causes damage. What kind
of protection is that? Ineffective.

Bud will post incessently so that your eyes glaze over. If he lie
enoughm - confuse reality - then you will buy what is simple rather
then what works. Profits are more important than honesty. Posting
enough lies and half truth will get you to forget what is demanded by
every professional organization from IEEE, to NIST, to every telco, to
every commercial broadcaster, to every electric company, to military
facilities ... They all demand protectors with better earthing. They
don't use what Bud recommends.

Bud even avoids all discussion of earthing because his protector
does not have that dedicated earthing connection. Plug-in protector
does not provide the comprehensive protection provided by one properly
earthed 'whole house' protector. Properly earthed 'whole house'
protector is a simpler, less expensive, and real world solution. It
eliminates the need for grossly overpriced and 'scary picture' plug-in
protectors.

A protector without earthing does not provide protection. Why does
he avoid that reality? Where does surge energy get diverted if not
into earth? Page 42 Figure 8. Surge was diverted 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV. Energy not dissipated in earth
must be dissipated where? Bud will not even provide a manufacturer
specs. Why? Even his manufacturer will not make such claims in
writing. Instead they have Bud.

Bud begins his post with spin (lying by telling half truths). That
telco installed 'whole house' protector on your phone line did not
provide protection for two wire appliances because ALL incoming
utilities must have such protection. Bud forgets to mention that
part. Damage still happened because another 'whole house' protector
was not installed on AC mains. Bud 'forgets' why two wire appliance
are damaged. What happens when AC electric, telephone, cable, and
satellite dish are all properly earthed? All one wire, two wire,
three wire and 100 wire appliances are protected. Your telco uses
'whole house' protectors so that a 100,000 wire appliance is protected
- and without any plug-in protectors. Bud is accused of posting
another half truth just to confuse you. Honesty is not Bud which is
why he will post incessently.

Where does the US Army recommend plug-in protectors? Not. US Army
needs reliable protection. Protectors that 'clamp to nothing' (as Bud
claims), instead, clamp 8000 volts destructively through adjacent
electronics such as Page 42 Figure 8.

Why does Bud also ignore those 'scary pictures'? He lied. UL1449
was created in the late 1980s - and Bud knows that. 'Scary pictures'
are protectors built long after 1987 - and still did what in Boston on
28 Sept? Being honest is not Bud. Honesty means profits are at
risk. Bud will say anything to avoid reality of those 'scary
pictures'; to not post manufacturer specs; to forget why earthing is
so important; and why 'clamping to nothing' only mocks the reader's
intelligence. Why do high reliabilty facilties not use what Bud
recommends?

On Oct 22, 11:51 am, bud-- wrote:
...
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? Repeating:
"They are 'the easiest solution'."
and:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
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."

With no valid technical arguments w_ has to twist what the NIST says.
...


I recommend only accurate information. Read the guides and install what
you want.
...

Repeating:
"The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or
stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
...

One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000 A and 1475 Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.

Undersizing makes it even more profitable.

"Undersizing" is a red herring. Suppressors with very high ratings are
readily available.
...

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has are pathetic scare tactics.
...

What is the source of the article? Who said the surge suppressor was the
cause? Why? Was it UL listed or cheap unlisted crap? Was it made before
1998?
...

Repeating:
"Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N.
That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes."

Lacking technical arguments w_ has to invent "each type of surge".
w_'s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does not list
"each type of surge".
...

w_tom wrote:


Bud begins his post with spin (lying by telling half truths).

The same drivel from a religious fanatic. I provide reputable sources -
guides from the IEEE and NIST. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

w_ can’t even find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you get are his opinions based on a religious belief in
earthing.


w_ can’t 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.


–-
bud--

On Oct 23, 10:46 am, bud-- wrote:
...
The same drivel from a religious fanatic.

... another lunatic ... religious belief

Bizarre claim

Even Bud's citations says a protector needs earthing to be
effective. Where must that surge energy be diverted? To earth
ground. Bud cannot dispute what comes from his own citation. He
also cannot dispute facts from Electrical Engineeing Times entitled
"Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" that define
protection completely in terms of earthing. So he twists facts. When
asked for any plug-in protector specification numbers that define
protection from each type of surge, Bud's response: crickets.

Bud's half truths have been exposed. Bud has no technical reply.
So Bud does as he routinely does - post mockery and insults.

Responsible sources repeatedly defines protection in terms of
earthing - or what Bud calls a 'religious belief'. Even Ben Franklin
demonstrated the principle in 1752.

Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or
$150. With massive profits at risk, Bud must resort to mockery and
insults. And still no numeric spec from a plug-in protector. Why?
No such specification numbers exist. A protector without earthing
needs Bud to promote half truths.

Effective 'whole house' protectors are available from more
responsible manufacturers such as Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Intermatic,
Leviton, Siemens, GE and others. An antonym list includes APC,
Tripplite, or Belkin. How does Bud's 'magic box' stop what three
miles of sky could not? How does his 'magic box' dissipate all that
surge energy? His response? Crickets or insults.

w_tom wrote:

Bud's half truths have been exposed. Bud has no technical reply.

As always the technical reply is the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say
plug-in suppressors are effective.

w_’s drivel still does not have a link to another lunatic that says
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Could it be nobody agrees with w__???

And w_ still has not answered 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Still no sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.


--
bud--

Again, Bud posts no technical sources. He cannot. Technical sources
such as both articles from Electrical Engineering Times defines
protection completely in terms of earth ground.

Bud must reply incessantly. Profits are at risk. How does Bud's
'magic box' stop what three miles of sky could not? How does his
'magic box' dissipate all that surge energy? Where does that surge
energy go? Why do his IEEE and NIST guides demand protectors with
proper earthing AND show how a plug-in protector can contribute to
appliance damage? Why does he pretend those 'scary pictures' do not
exist? His response? Crickets or insults.

Bud has no technical experience. Bud is a promoter. He has used
every half fact. Profits are at risk. So Bud posts insults. The
responsible homeowner can install one effective protector (that has a
dedicated earthing wire) from Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Intermatic,
Leviton, Siemens, GE and others. One protector protects everything,
remains functional, and costs tens of times less money. In every
case, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Curious.
That was the point in both articles from Electrical Engineering
Times. Where is the earth ground for Bud's 'scary picture'
protectors? Crickets.

On Oct 24, 11:32 am, bud-- wrote:
As always the technical reply is the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say
plug-in suppressors are effective.

w_'s drivel still does not have a link to another lunatic that says
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Could it be nobody agrees with w__???

And w_ still has not answered 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Still no sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

w_tom wrote:
Again, Bud posts no technical sources.

Poor w_ does not consider the IEEE or NIST technical sources.


Bud must reply incessantly.

w_ must post incessantly because his religious belief has been
challenged. Just like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness.


Bud is a promoter.

Lacking any technical arguments w_ can only attack those who question
his dogma.

But still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective. If you were right wouldn’t someone in the known universe
agree with you w_???

And w_ still has not answered questions on the great issues of the day:
- 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?



Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Still no sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.


--
bud--

w_tom wrote:

Twaddle and personal antagonism worthy of a two year old.

PLONK

bud-- wrote:


Twaddle and personal antagonism worthy of a two year old.

PLONK

On Oct 25, 1:04 pm, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:
Twaddle and personal antagonism worthy of a two year old.

Bud promotes plug-in protectors. He must post infantile mockery and
insults to distort a reality that every adult fears:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

No responsible way to deny these facts. So he posts incessant
insults, and still, not one numeric specification. Those 'scary
pictures' are another technical reality that go well beyond petty
antagonisms.

w_tom wrote:


No responsible way to deny these facts.

The same drivel denied by w_'s own links.


For reliable information on surge protection read the IEEE and/or NIST
guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Or read w_’s links on plug-in suppressors. Oops - there aren’t any -
nobody agrees with w_’s religious fantasy.


Still no 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?



Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Still no sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.


--
bud--