On May 3, 6:04 am, wrote:
Bull****. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.

Yes, high impedance can supplement protection when high impedance is
part of a system that also includes the only essential component in
any surge protection system: a low impedance (short, no sharp bends,
no splices, etc) connection to single point earth ground. High
impedance does not provide protection; can only supplement effective
protection. Effective protection is a low impedance connection to
single point earth ground.

Why is the 'whole house' protector so effective? Page 42 Figure 8
demonstrates what happens when a protector is too far from earth
ground and too close to the appliance.. Effective protector includes
separation (higher impedance) from the protected appliance AND a short
(low impedance) connection to earth ground. That low impedance
connection is essential. High impedance can only supplement the
protection and is not effective when that low impedance earth
connection does not exist.

Will a high impedance stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
not? Of course not. Obviously not. And yet some just know
otherwise. Will that silly little one inch part inside a plug-in
protector stop what three miles of sky could not? Of course not.

Without that short (low impedance) and essential connection to
earth, only then can a high impedance connection do something useful.

On May 3, 4:38*am, Franc Zabkar wrote:
Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
through the TV?

See many posts that describe this same failure to a network of
powered off computers. Surge incoming on wires that typically carry
most surges into buildings: black (hot) AC wire. Surge arrived two
plug-in protectors - each adjacent to powered off computers. Often
that surge is trivial; does not overwhelm protection inside a
computer's power supply. Maybe - but irrelevant due to the adjacent
protector.

Protector did its job - MOVs shunted (connected, diverted) surge
current into all other AC wires including the green safety ground
wire. Green wire connects directly to motherboard and network cards -
still seeking earth ground.

Path to earth was through the network and into a third computer.
Through that third computer's motherboard, through modem, and to earth
via phone lines. Semiconductors in these paths were damaged.

We literally traced this path by replacing ICs. Some ICs (ie
network interface chips) even had cracks on packages where surge
current entered or exiting those ICs. Absolutely no doubt as to how
surge currents found earth ground, destructively, via adjacent
computers.

Plug-in protector is not for and does not claim to protect from this
typically destructive type of surge. Often surges are too trivial to
overwhelm power supply circuits. But because that protector was too
close to powered off computers and too far from earth ground, then
surge was given an alternative and destructive path to earth ground
via networked computers.

Plug-in protectors are for surges that typically don't cause
damage. When the essential 'whole house' protector is not earthed,
then plug-in protectors may earth surges destructively through
adjacent appliances. Every time? Of course not. But the same
ineffective protection is demonstrated in Bud's citation - 8000 volts
destructively on Page 42 Figure 8. That surge was permitted inside
the building. Plug-in protector did nothing to avert 8000 volts
destructively via the adjacent TV. Bud says otherwise by denying Page
42 Figure 8.

Page 42 Figure 8 eliminated by properly earthing a 'whole house'
protector. Surges that seek earth ground destructively through
household appliances must be earthed at the service entrance.

What would have avoided above network damage? Homeowner later
installed and earthed a 'whole house' protector. Solution necessary
so that plug-in protectors do not earth surges, destructively, though
adjacent appliances, even on Page 42 Figure 8. Solution necessary so
that protection from a typically destructive surge exists.

On May 3, 6:40 am, wrote:
The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
are not overlapping in what they talk about.

Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
protects from surges that rarely damage appliances. As demonstrated
repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.

So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.

If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?

If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.

Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
installed.

Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
will do no harm".

Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
damage – that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.

Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don’t seek earth
ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
does not cause damage.

On May 3, 6:40 am, wrote:
The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
are not overlapping in what they talk about.

Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
protects from surges that rarely damage appliances. As demonstrated
repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.

So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.

If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?

If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.

Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
installed.

Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
will do no harm".

Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
damage – that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.

Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don’t seek earth
ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
does not cause damage.

w_tom wrote:

On May 3, 6:40 am, wrote:

The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
are not overlapping in what they talk about.


Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
protects from surges that rarely damage appliances. As demonstrated
repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.

So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.

If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?

If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.

Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
installed.

Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
will do no harm".

Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
damage – that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.

Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don’t seek earth
ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
does not cause damage.

Hmmm,
I experienced a direct lightning strike on a 7 story building. In the
basement there was a large(I mean LARGE) scale data center which I was
in charge of.
The strike clobbered all the data stored in mass storage sub system
requiring 3 days' total system restore. I think when surge is BIG,
nothing can be protected from it.

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar wrote:
| On 3 May 2008 09:46:09 GMT, put finger to
| keyboard and composed:
|
|In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar wrote:
|| On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom put
|| finger to keyboard and composed:
||
||On May 1, 2:18?pm, ransley wrote:
|| Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
|| damages from from surges and lightning offer non such ?claim or
|| warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
|| step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
|| times, anything you do helps a bit.
||
|| Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
||destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
||through it.
||
|| Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
|| through the TV?
|
|A surge will take _every_ path. Where that ends up with a voltage difference
|somewhere, anywhere, that exceeds the device breakdown voltage, then you will
|have current flow across there. And if that breakdown means damage, as it
|would for things like a CMOS circuit component, the device would be damaged.
|
| True but irrelevant to my question. I wanted specific examples in
| support of the claim that "some things installed will decrease
| protection".

Installing something that ends up creating a situation where you will have a
big voltage difference where you otherwise would not is such an example.


| A strike on the mains would be clamped to the earth pin by MOVs. It
| may still be that the antenna provides a second path to earth which
| would mean that the TV could be damaged that way. However, the absence
| of an earth pin would result in an even higher differential voltage
| between mains and antenna which would mean an even greater likelihood
| of damage. OTOH, if the strike arrived via the antenna, then the
| presence or absence of the earth pin should make very little
| difference AFAICS.

The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping. The surge will
take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
MOVs. In general, about 50% will go each way. That can vary at higher
frequencies.

The antenna "second path to earth" could provide that difference in voltage
that can lead to substantial and damaging current. However, if you bring
the antenna feedline in at the point electric power comes in, and ground
everything in common, then whatever voltage rise you get in low frequencies
will be fairly equal between power connection and antenna connection. The
strike coming in on the antenna is not really any different, except in the
high frequencies. The antenna feedline does not degrade the high frequencies
as much as the power lines.

The high frequencies can still be an issue. They are less common so if you
are just trying to reduce your risk then this is a good start. Most energy
is in lower frequencies (though this varies by means of entry). But there
are ways to deal with the high frequency energy as well, if you want to go
that far. It just depends on how much you want to spend to get how much
protection.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang wrote:

| I experienced a direct lightning strike on a 7 story building. In the
| basement there was a large(I mean LARGE) scale data center which I was
| in charge of.
| The strike clobbered all the data stored in mass storage sub system
| requiring 3 days' total system restore. I think when surge is BIG,
| nothing can be protected from it.

The majority of data centers are protected from a lightning strike only at a
minimal level. I disagree about there being nothing to protect from "BIG"
strikes. But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on it.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell wrote:

| Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
| flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
| continue to spout your ignorance and lies.

Not true.

When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.

You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
circuit".

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell wrote:

| Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
| flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
| continue to spout your ignorance and lies.

Not true.

When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.

You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
circuit".


Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
difference.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell wrote:

| Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
| flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
| continue to spout your ignorance and lies.

Not true.

When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.

You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
circuit".

Hmmm,
You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and
voltage(poential) Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we have to
rewrite Ohm's law. Show your credential to make a stamement like that.
Shameful.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

wrote:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell wrote:

| Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
| flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
| continue to spout your ignorance and lies.

Not true.

When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.

You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
circuit".



Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
difference.


Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.

wrote:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:

| You have never provided a source that agrees with you on
| disputed issues.

Nor do I need to...

You misspelled "cause I ain't got none".

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.


It's in his sig file: KA9WGN


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Sat, 3 May 2008 20:14:17 -0700 (PDT), w_tom put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On May 3, 4:38*am, Franc Zabkar wrote:
Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
through the TV?

See many posts that describe this same failure to a network of
powered off computers. Surge incoming on wires that typically carry
most surges into buildings: black (hot) AC wire. Surge arrived two
plug-in protectors - each adjacent to powered off computers. Often
that surge is trivial; does not overwhelm protection inside a
computer's power supply. Maybe - but irrelevant due to the adjacent
protector.

Protector did its job - MOVs shunted (connected, diverted) surge
current into all other AC wires including the green safety ground
wire. Green wire connects directly to motherboard and network cards -
still seeking earth ground.

Path to earth was through the network and into a third computer.
Through that third computer's motherboard, through modem, and to earth
via phone lines. Semiconductors in these paths were damaged.

We literally traced this path by replacing ICs. Some ICs (ie
network interface chips) even had cracks on packages where surge
current entered or exiting those ICs. Absolutely no doubt as to how
surge currents found earth ground, destructively, via adjacent
computers.

Plug-in protector is not for and does not claim to protect from this
typically destructive type of surge. Often surges are too trivial to
overwhelm power supply circuits. But because that protector was too
close to powered off computers and too far from earth ground, then
surge was given an alternative and destructive path to earth ground
via networked computers.

Plug-in protectors are for surges that typically don't cause
damage. When the essential 'whole house' protector is not earthed,
then plug-in protectors may earth surges destructively through
adjacent appliances. Every time? Of course not. But the same
ineffective protection is demonstrated in Bud's citation - 8000 volts
destructively on Page 42 Figure 8. That surge was permitted inside
the building. Plug-in protector did nothing to avert 8000 volts
destructively via the adjacent TV. Bud says otherwise by denying Page
42 Figure 8.

Page 42 Figure 8 eliminated by properly earthing a 'whole house'
protector. Surges that seek earth ground destructively through
household appliances must be earthed at the service entrance.

What would have avoided above network damage? Homeowner later
installed and earthed a 'whole house' protector. Solution necessary
so that plug-in protectors do not earth surges, destructively, though
adjacent appliances, even on Page 42 Figure 8. Solution necessary so
that protection from a typically destructive surge exists.

OK, thanks. That all makes sense. However, I was thinking of a typical
2-pin TV, not an earthed computer.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.



It's in his sig file: KA9WGN


Hmmm,
That is sign format of novice class.

Tony Hwang wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.



It's in his sig file: KA9WGN


Hmmm,
That is sign format of novice class.


In more than one way. Read some of the other crap he's posted on
news:alt.engineering.electrical if you have a strong stomach.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:


Hi,
Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
Mine is VE6CGX.



It's in his sig file: KA9WGN



Hmmm,
That is sign format of novice class.



In more than one way. Read some of the other crap he's posted on
news:alt.engineering.electrical if you have a strong stomach.


Hmmm,
Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
dropped.

In article
..com, w_tom writes

When trader misread, then trader reclessly invented MOVs
to provide internal protection.

Trader then assumed
that protection must be provided by MOVs.

trader assumes protection must be provided by MOVs.

MOVs inside appliances is
another trader 'wild speculation'

trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read what
was posted.

Mythical MOV inside
appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to see;

MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth.

then trader would not invent
fictional MOVs inside appliances.

The same thing said eight times. Part of w_tom's modus operandi -
repeat something enough times and it must be true.

What w_tom posted is not found in
trader's wild speculation.

Referring to yourself in the third person again. You need help from a
mental health professional, w_tom.

--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
(")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
dropped.


Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or
_wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of dollars worth of
damage. I had a studio building and STL tower in Leesburg Florida hit
by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete from the building where
the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical. It WAS an excellent example
of _wacko_tom's UFER ground, before the steel vaporized inside damp
concrete. 95% of the damage was caused by the EMP. I lost the 11 GHz
Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system, all the computer terminals,
and had some minor problems with other electronics. It turned out that
the dead terminals all had high ESR electrolytics, and that they were
working because they were all on UPS before the strike took out all the
electricity. The power 1A2 supply needed some of the weird WE fuses,
one KTU card and was back in service. The STL was mounted on the tower
in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO module. It was 20 years old, and
at least 10 years obsolete, so it needed that module updated, anyway.

I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a STL
transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for repair &
upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I waited for the
new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we had been hit. Then I
moved the microwave racks to a closet in the corner of the building, and
used 4" EMT between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
have had strikes since then, but no problems.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Mike Tomlinson wrote:

| The same thing said eight times. Part of w_tom's modus operandi -
| repeat something enough times and it must be true.

That's a common MO of anyone arguing any point where the other party is not
accepting it. It happens on all sides. Nothing significant from this bit
of "info". Move along.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv John Doe wrote:
| wrote:
|
| In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:
|
|| You have never provided a source that agrees with you on
|| disputed issues.
|
| Nor do I need to...
|
| You misspelled "cause I ain't got none".

My sources predate the internet being the vast source of info it is today.
They include discussions with EE professors, and observing the work of
researchers. They also include analysis of events I've experienced, and
also events described that others experienced. And some comes from an old
ancient technology called a book (which I didn't get to keep because it
came from a library). My interest in it was always about the physics of how
it happens.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell wrote:
| wrote:
|
| In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
| | Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
| | flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
| | continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
|
| Not true.
|
| When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
| out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
| complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
| It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
| that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
| a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|
| You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
| you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
| The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
| circuit".
|
|
| Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
| Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
| claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
| difference.

1. I *am* an amateur radio operator and I *do* know the difference.

2. Electromotive force is not a factor here, beyond what it might do to cause
physical motion of wires during a surge (not impossible, but not usually
considered).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
| wrote:
|
|In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
|| Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
|| flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
|| continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
|
|Not true.
|
|When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
|out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
|complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
|It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
|that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
|a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|
|You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
|you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
|The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
|circuit".
|
|
|
| Yawn. You are trying your usual lame crap of misdirection.
| Electromotive force and electromagnetic waves are not the same. you
| claim to be an amateur radio operator, so you SHOULD know the
| difference.
|
|
| Hi,
| Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
| Mine is VE6CGX.

It can be seen in my signature on my posts.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
| Tony Hwang wrote:
|
|Hi,
|Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
|Mine is VE6CGX.
|
|
|
| It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
|
|
| Hmmm,
| That is sign format of novice class.

Which means my first ticket was novice. I upgraded a month after that.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
| Tony Hwang wrote:
|
|Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
|Tony Hwang wrote:
|
|
|Hi,
|Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
|Mine is VE6CGX.
|
|
|
| It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
|
|
|
|Hmmm,
|That is sign format of novice class.
|
|
|
| In more than one way. Read some of the other crap he's posted on
| news:alt.engineering.electrical if you have a strong stomach.
|
|
| Hmmm,
| Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
| dropped.

I've never even used CB.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang wrote:
| wrote:
| In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
| | Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
| | flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
| | continue to spout your ignorance and lies.
|
| Not true.
|
| When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that go
| out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
| complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find out.
| It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
| that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open condition,
| a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.
|
| You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
| you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission line.
| The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
| circuit".
|
| Hmmm,
| You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and
| voltage(poential) Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we have to
| rewrite Ohm's law. Show your credential to make a stamement like that.
| Shameful.

Your knowledge of electricity shows to be a very basic level. You completely
lack an understanding of how electricity does flow. You have no concept at all
of transmission lines (and Michael A. Terrell seems to have forgotten his).
Credentials have nothing to do with whether a statement is correct or not.
Mine is correct but you don't have sufficient background to even understand it.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell
wrote:

| Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
| flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
| continue to spout your ignorance and lies.

Not true.

When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires
that go
out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find
out.
It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open
condition,
a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.

You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission
line.
The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
circuit".

Hmmm,
You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and
voltage(poential) Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we have to
rewrite Ohm's law. Show your credential to make a stamement like that.
Shameful.

Actually, a real current will flow until the line's capacitance is
charged to the source voltage. When the source is removed, the energy
involved will remain until it is leaked off through the inter-wire
resistance. If the source is AC, no net energy will "flow", except that
lost in the inter-wire resistance. If the line length is long enough at
the frequency involved, reflections from the end of an incorrectly
terminated transmission line will return to dissipate energy in the
source resistance.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.
K6EVE

"w_tom" wrote in message
...
On May 1, 12:21 pm, wrote:
He says appliance/ electronics manufacturers put surge
protection inside the appliance and that is peachy keen
and appropriate. Yet he can't explain how it is that an
MOV inside the electronics actually protects, while an
MOV located in a plug-in is useless.

If trader read what was posted rather than entertain his
assumptions, then trader would understand appliances contain internal
protection. When trader misread, then trader reclessly invented MOVs
to provide internal protection. What w_tom posted is not found in
trader's wild speculation.

With a grasp of technology, then trader would have known industry
standard numbers that defined internal electronics protection even 35
years ago. Trader does not know these numbers. Trader then assumed
that protection must be provided by MOVs. Trader - learn technology
BEFORE knowing everything. You have no idea of protection inside all
appliances. By reading reclessly and by using wild speculation and
ignorance, trader assumes protection must be provided by MOVs.

Protection inside appliances is integrated within appliance
design. Internal appliance protection that may be overwhelmed if a
'whole house' protector is not installed and properly earthed.
Nothing in that paragraph discusses MOVs. MOVs inside appliances is
another trader 'wild speculation' due to knowledge without first
learning the technology.

We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors short
(ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Simple stuff
that so confused trader. trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read what
was posted. trader again demonstrates insufficient technical
kowledge justifies his mockery and insult. Mythical MOV inside
appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to see;
not what is posted.

MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. Had trader read what
was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent
fictional MOVs inside appliances.


Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down to people
as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?

You read sometimes like one of those old children's "Golden Books".

In alt.engineering.electrical w_tom wrote:

| Bud claims plug-in protectors provide a complete protection system -
| can protect from all types of surges. A plug-in protector only
| protects from surges that rarely damage appliances. As demonstrated
| repeatedly in other posts, plug-in protectors have even earthed a
| typically destructive type of surge through adjacent appliances. A
| problem alleviated by earthing a 'whole house' protector.

I don't agree with that assessment of the plug-in protector. If the
appliance has its own MOVs to protect stuff, then this would be true.
Not all do. Some appliances are more sensitive than others. It just
depends on what kind of surge is arriving, and where from. If it is
differential mode on the power wires, the plug-in protector can do
some important protection. Even with whole house protection in place,
you can have some energy get past it, and the surge can be induced into
the building wiring. Usually the induced surge is common mode, which
by itself is less of a problem. But if the appliance is connected to
more than one wiring, such as a computer with modem, then induced
surges can be more of a problem because of the difference between the
wiring. If the plug-in surge protector has them all attached at one
point, that should serve to equalize the voltage in most cases enough
to avoid damage.


| So that plug-in protectors do not compromise protection inside all
| appliances, the typically destructive surge must be earthed BEFORE
| entering a building. That solution is used everywhere professionals
| install protection. Everywhere. Bud also denies this.

The entrance protection, which works a lot better if earthed, is very
important for the big surges arriving on the service wiring. Being
earthed, it will sink most of the low frequency energy. That leaves
a partial surge that can still propogate beyond that point, as well as
induced surges which the entrance protection didn't even get a shot at.


| If a destructive type surge is properly earthed, then one can spend
| money on plug-in protectors to also protect from a typically non-
| destructive surge. This is called "complete protection". However
| better facilities make that whole house' protector even more effective
| by enhancing earth ground. Where is money better spent?

There is certainly a best "complete protection". I agreed that when
Bud focuses on one type of protection and calls it effective, he is
merely toying with the word "effective". It is better than nothing.
It can even reduce the number of damaging incidents a lot. But it is
not "complete effectiveness". But neither is "whole house" protection.

What one needs for the best is "everywhere protection".


| If not using a 'whole house' protector, well, even 'scary pictures'
| created by typically undersized protectors now creates a hazard.

There are tradeoffs. Bud is focusing on the low frequency energy and
seems to think that is all there us because a lot of documents focus
on it because more energy is in the low frequencies. Also, surges
that come from a greater distance have the higher frequencies reduced.


| Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
| protector, then surge energy somehow disappears. Obviously not true.
| That surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly into earth. Just
| another reason why plug-in protectors create problems when a 'whole
| house' protector and (more important) proper earthing is not
| installed.

It depends. The surge consisting of primarly low frequency energy
(under 1 MHz) gets distributed around more evenly. The advantage is
that leaves less voltage differences between various wires. This is
an advantage to devices connected to more than one wire, like a TV
with cable. Without it, the surge arriving in common mode on power
(the plug-in suppressor won't stop that) will go through the TV and
on to the cable, generally zapping the tuner front end stage. But
if the cable is connected in parallel to the plug-in protector, then
the cable and power are at about the same voltage. The risk of damage
is much less that way. This applies to low frequency energy, which is
the more common. OTOH, if high frequency energy is coming in, such as
a direct strike on the mast of the power service drop, with shorter
branch circuit wires in the house, then the high frequency energy can
cross over from the power to the cable and zap the front end stage
just from the fast rising wavefront.

It's a give and take. Adding the plug-in surge protector connected to
all wires reduces certain surge effects, and increases others. The
advantage is gained when what you decrease is more common than what you
increase.

Bud either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it. It does
get attenuated quickly on wiring that has inductance. When the surge
is in common mode, as it will be in the wiring from most direct strikes,
the inductance on the wire is substantial, and the high frequencies will
be attenuated quickly. But, once _part_ of that energy is diverted to
ground on _one_ of the wires (e.g. the neutral that is grounded), then
_part_ of the surge is now differential (or transverse) mode, and that
part can propogate high frequency energy further on wire _pairs_.

One important way to protect against high frequency energy is to have
inductive blockage. That's practical to do on power lines. It can be
done on phone, but it has to be reduced if DSL is being used. There
are special DSL-specific telephone surge protectors that have low pass
filters to the service and high pass filters to ground with a cutoff
frequency above the DSL level. Othewise they can do the cutoff way
lower just above the voice level.


| Others claim a plug-in protector will stop or magically absorb
| surges. Obviously no protector stops lightning. Obviously (from so
| many professional citations) lightning damage is routinely eliminated
| by diverting typically destructive surges to earth ground "where it
| will do no harm".

Actually, it is possible to make an absorption-type protector. It is
not a trivial thing, and you would never want to do so inside a house.
I have built one. It consisted of a zig-zag phone wire running through
a large 8 inch PVC pipe filled with steel wool. At one end going to
the building, was a lot of inductance (the phone wire wrapped through
half a dozen large ferrite cores). The whole thing was buried in the
ground. It took a hit a few months later and was destroyed. The phone
wire was burned up. The steel wool was gone. The pipe was shattered.
The computer the phone line was connected to was undamaged.

Oh, it did have some diversion, as well. A pair of #12 copper wires was
run along inside the pipe, running into ground several feet on each end.
Those wires survived the event.


| Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions. But
| the discussion is about the type of surge that typically does surge
| damage ? that finds earth ground destructively through appliances.
| Any protector located too close to appliances and too far from single
| point ground cannot protect from that type of surge. So Bud invents
| this magic plug-in protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear
| and that, by itself, is a complete protection system.

There are lot of different types of surges that cause damage. There is no
one protection that can defeat them all.


| Bud pretends that typically destructive surges don?t seek earth
| ground. Even plug-in protectors need that properly earthed 'whole
| house' protector so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
| adjacent appliance damage. Only then can a plug-in protector do what
| it is designed to do - protect from a type of surge that typically
| does not cause damage.

He is partially right. The common mode does "seek ground" in the sense that
the big difference is there. The differential mode is just propogating where
it can (and it can go further). Both can consist of low (more often, and more
energy) frequency and high frequency.

Connect two TVs to an antenna. Connect the chassis of ONE of them to ground.
The one with the ground connection will be more often damaged alone. But
there are also times when the other one can be damaged alone. Often both
will be damaged. It depends on things like whether the surge in the wire
is induced or direct. It depends on if you have additional lightning
arrestors on that wire (which can even change common mode to differential
mode and change which TV will be damaged).

The two of you are arguing entirely different aspects of surge issues that
has some degree of overlap. And it seems both of you have an incomplete
understanding of all the possible issues (or at least have only expressed
point regarding said subsets).

There is no simple answer to surge protection. There are some good practices.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels wrote:

| As always, "w_tom" ignores that the high voltages that short out
| "3 miles of sky" will short out the underground power lines which
| enter my building and buildings all over America. Anything able to
| leap "3 miles of sky" will leap the fraction of an inch between the
| power lines and the earthed metal conduit. What is left will be a
| much lower voltage spike that can be handled by the average
| "plug-in protector".

It does not always make the 2nd leap to ground. There is not always a metal
conduit available. I've seen such strikes.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|
| Tony Hwang wrote:
|
| Hmmm,
| Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
| dropped.
|
|
| Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
| All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
| tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
| am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or

Google for Michael A. Terrell's past posts and you will see he is more of
a person with social problems that prefers to find ways to attack people
at a personal level, rather that make his "disputes" with the specific
points being presented. I don't cave in to such attacks and he apparently
eventually realized that and figured that if he didn't read my posts at all,
he would not be tempted to make more personal attacks.

What he can't know is what would happen if he followed _any_ advice given on
the net. Since he didn't, there was no such test. He is merely speculating.
And he didn't seem to fully grasp all that was said, since his responses were
sometimes in reference to things not actually said. Whether he misread what
was said in those instances, or lacked the understanding needed, I do not
know.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels wrote:

| Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
| protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
| I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
| buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
| surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
| equipment in use?

How much money are you willing to spend?

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical VWWall wrote:

| Actually, a real current will flow until the line's capacitance is
| charged to the source voltage. When the source is removed, the energy
| involved will remain until it is leaked off through the inter-wire
| resistance. If the source is AC, no net energy will "flow", except that
| lost in the inter-wire resistance. If the line length is long enough at
| the frequency involved, reflections from the end of an incorrectly
| terminated transmission line will return to dissipate energy in the
| source resistance.

That reflection even happens with DC. When the switch closes, you have a
rising wavefront leading the chargeup of the line. Unless the far end has
a perfectly matched load, that wavefront will reflect back. This is in
fact how a lot of very early radio transmissions were tuned, with the
"switch" being a noisy spark gap, and the "line" being a long wire antenna
cut to a specific length. You don't even need to have 2 conductors.


| --
| Virg Wall, P.E.
| K6EVE

They seem to not believe me because I am a "mere amateur". You might suffer
the same fate from some of them (I won't name names; it's not hard to figure
out who they are).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels wrote:
| "Tony Hwang" wrote:
| You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and voltage(poential)
| Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we
| have to rewrite Ohm's law. Show your credential to make a
| stamement like that.
|
|
| You're forgetting RF frequencies - which can flow (back
| and forth) quite readily in an open circuit such as a transmitter
| tower, whip antenna, or transmission line, or building power
| wiring, steel frame, etc.

I think they intentionally ignored it. Well, maybe Mr. Terrell actually
forgot.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.engineering.electrical Tantalust wrote:
| wrote in message
| ...
| In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote:
| | wrote in message
| | ...
| | In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote:
| | |
| | | wrote
| | |
| | |Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
| | |last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
| | |of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
| | |companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
| | |it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell
| plug-in
| | |ones too.
| | |
| | | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working
| overtime
| | as a
| | | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
| |
| | Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing
| | about
| | entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their
| | rants
| | are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the
| | first
| | screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing
| off
| | the
| | posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
| |
| | Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express?
|
| Not that I know of. But my reader is configured to filter out
| Googlegroups
| due to Google's lack of action to deal with the massive spam floods they
| let
| reach Usenet. Not only is there many times as much spam from Googlegroups
| as legitimate posts in the groups I read, but in many, the level of normal
| posts has fallen, suggesting that this issue is causing some to abandon
| Usenet
| because of this.
|
| Thanks for the info.

I should clarify that where I said "many times as much spam from Googlegroups
as legitimate posts in the groups I read" I was referring to legitimate posts
ALSO FROM Googlegroups (the ones I would lose by blocking). In some cases the
spam truly was in excess of ALL legitimate posts. As it turns out, my newsreader
will still show the killed posts with a "K" in the threading displays. So if
someone followed them, or they followed one of mine, I can at least pick it.
But the normal tabbing through new posts still skips them.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical VWWall wrote:

| Actually, a real current will flow until the line's capacitance is
| charged to the source voltage. When the source is removed, the energy
| involved will remain until it is leaked off through the inter-wire
| resistance. If the source is AC, no net energy will "flow", except that
| lost in the inter-wire resistance. If the line length is long enough at
| the frequency involved, reflections from the end of an incorrectly
| terminated transmission line will return to dissipate energy in the
| source resistance.

That reflection even happens with DC. When the switch closes, you have a
rising wavefront leading the chargeup of the line. Unless the far end has
a perfectly matched load, that wavefront will reflect back. This is in
fact how a lot of very early radio transmissions were tuned, with the
"switch" being a noisy spark gap, and the "line" being a long wire antenna
cut to a specific length. You don't even need to have 2 conductors.

That's because a switch closure is not really DC. Resolve a step
function into a Fourier series, and it has an infinite number of AC
components. In the case of a single wire, you do need to consider EM
theory.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.
K6EVE
P1-11-49835
T2-11-49835

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Timothy Daniels wrote:

| Would you please sum up what you believe to be prudent
| protection (for electronic equipment) from nearby lightning strikes?
| I'm thinking of both in single-family homes and in condo/apartment
| buildings. What would you do to protect from in-house (or in-building)
| surges, such as elevator motors suddenly shorting out, or welding
| equipment in use?

How much money are you willing to spend?


The only thing I can think of that comes close is to have a heavy
motor/generator set with a HUGE flywheel sitting in the basement.

wrote in message
...
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar wrote:


The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping. The surge will
take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
MOVs. In general, about 50% will go each way. That can vary at higher
frequencies.

Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
impedance of each direction? When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
very low impedance.

Leonard

wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tony Hwang wrote:
| Michael A. Terrell wrote:
| Tony Hwang wrote:
|
|Hi,
|Is he a ham? What is his call sign?
|Mine is VE6CGX.
|
|
|
| It's in his sig file: KA9WGN
|
|
| Hmmm,
| That is sign format of novice class.

Which means my first ticket was novice. I upgraded a month after that.

Don't forget to renew it before June 16. From FCC:

KA9WGN Radio Service HA - Amateur
Status Active Auth Type Regular
Dates
Grant 06/16/1998 Expiration 06/16/2008
Effective 11/13/2003

snip personal info

--
Virg Wall

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:

Hmmm,
Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code requirement was
dropped.



Who knows? Wherever he came from, I don't see him on this computer.
All I know is that I finally kill filed him on this computer after I got
tired of reading his 'twilight zone' electrical & electronics babble. I
am a former radio & TV broadcast engineer, and if I followed his or
_wacko_tom's warped ideas, I would have had millions of dollars worth of
damage. I had a studio building and STL tower in Leesburg Florida hit
by a direct strike. It blew chunks of concrete from the building where
the rebar and threaded rods ran vertical. It WAS an excellent example
of _wacko_tom's UFER ground, before the steel vaporized inside damp
concrete. 95% of the damage was caused by the EMP. I lost the 11 GHz
Cars band STL, the 1A2 type phone system, all the computer terminals,
and had some minor problems with other electronics. It turned out that
the dead terminals all had high ESR electrolytics, and that they were
working because they were all on UPS before the strike took out all the
electricity. The power 1A2 supply needed some of the weird WE fuses,
one KTU card and was back in service. The STL was mounted on the tower
in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO module. It was 20 years old, and
at least 10 years obsolete, so it needed that module updated, anyway.

I started with the phones, then arranged a twice a day courier form
the studio to the transmitter site with U-matic tapes. We rented a STL
transmitter and shipped the damaged system to the OEM for repair &
upgrading. The terminals were down for a day, while I waited for the
new electrolytics. Or viewers didn't even know we had been hit. Then I
moved the microwave racks to a closet in the corner of the building, and
used 4" EMT between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
have had strikes since then, but no problems.


Hi,
Qucik check on Buckmaster shows he was born in '55. Technician
plus(novice) holder. For his age, does not seem to have corresponding
wisdom.