wrote:

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).

Hmmm,
Lenz and Hertz?

wrote:

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.

Plonk!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet wrote:
| 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.

There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
the impedance. It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
there.

There are two kinds of impedance to deal with here. The first (literally)
is the characteristic impedance. At the point of the MOVs themselves, it
will be about the same each way, but it can vary some at higher frequencies.
It depends on the way the MOVs and the connections with them are constructed.

The second is the net impedance of the path beyond the MOV connections.
That impedance is not what I am talking about in my prior statement. Yes,
it plays a part, but it is not infliienced by the MOVs. It would be the
same if you simply shorted the MOVs with a wire (though that certainly
causes other things to not work, so that isn't how protection is done).

Ultimately you do have to consider the _whole_ system to get an accurate view
of exactly what will happen. Generally this is impractical. What you have
to do is understand what can happen with the variations, and try to change
things to make the happenings do what you prefer (e.g. avoid damage to the
protected devices).

One example involved the power wiring. There should be a point where you
have the neutral grounded, and heavy duty MOVs between each hot wire (be
that 1, 2 or 3) and the grounded wire, and between individual hot wires as
well. The grounded wire (referred to as neutral, but incorrectly in some
cases, even though this is the common referral) would be directly connected
to the path to ground. That connection should be with the least impedance
you can possibly get, within your cost/risk criteria. That means a short
and/or heavy conductor. Short to make it more effective at higher frequencies
by reducing inductive impedance. Heavy to handle a greater current flow.
Much of the surge can now take this path to ground. But not all of it will.
To maximize what will take the path to ground, and minimize what goes to the
building loads/devices that could be damaged, you need to have an increased
impedance on that path. Clearly resistors are not workable since that stops
the power itself, which you do not want to impede. What can work is a low
pass filter primarily an inductor. It needs to be made to have very little
effect at 60 Hz and below, yet block energy/power above that as much as is
possible (again, within your cost/risk criteria). The combination of these
things can limit the surge that reaches protected devices to a tiny fraction
of its original energy.

--
|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 "nobody " wrote:
| 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.

How about driving a generator in the basement with either a heavy fiberglass
axle rod driven at some distance by a (sacrificial) motor, or by a fluid that
does not conduct electricity through a turbine system, similarly driven by a
motor/pump at some distance.

--
|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 Tony Hwang wrote:
| 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.

Whose wisdom are you judging? What have you see that I have posted that you
think is wrong? Would you like to debate the technical points? Or do you
just want to be one of those people that can only "win" by making personal
attacks?

--
|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 Tony Hwang wrote:
| wrote:
|
| 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).

Things like motors and generators, including Faraday's homopolar generator,
are interesting things to talk about (IMHO) ... in a different thread. Bring
it up (post a new thread) if you have a point to say or a question to ask.
It should generally go in alt.engineering.electrical, only, not the many other
groups that have been put in this thread.

--
|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 Tony Hwang wrote:
| wrote:
|
| 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.
|
| Plonk!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bye. Nothing missed. Nothing gained.

--
|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:
| 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.

Electromagnetic, yes. Electromotive (as someone else suggested), not really.

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

| | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
| | the experiment".
|
| I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
| the explanations.
|
| Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
| reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
| of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
| for which you have no supporting cite.

You are likely to never see any citation that attests to what I believe.

Because some of what you believe has nothing to do with the real world.


| And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
| by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
| apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
| with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.

I've _met_ electrical engineers that are idiots. I've met people in a
lot of other fields that are idiots.

I don't know if the authors of what you have read are idiots. Maybe they
are just not writing as broadly as you think they are.

Of course they are idiots. They are all members of the IEEE. Only idiots
can join. And only the biggest idiots can write publications for the IEEE.

Martzloff is not only an IEEE idiot. He worked for the NIST - another
well known lair of idiots.

Thank goodness you aren’t a member.


| For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
| less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
| of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
| within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
| but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
| frequency energy issues entirely.
|
| Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
| papers on surges and suppression. In one of them he wrote:
| "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
| often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
| systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
| concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
| the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
| the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
| classical transmission line behavior."
| Residential branch circuits aren't 200m.
|
| Your response: "Then he flubbed the experiment." In another case you
| have said Martzloff had a hidden agenda.

I addressed this one elsewhere. You seem to have misunderstood him.
He did not say that wiring systems do not exhibit transmission line
characteristics.

If you had actually read the quote:
"*it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line concepts to
wiring systems*"
and "*this means that the line must be at least 200 m long before one
can think in terms of classical transmission line behavior*."

Repeating: "Residential branch circuits aren't 200m."

Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases.

Like branch circuits under 200 meters long.


| You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
| times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
| derived.

So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?

I intended "induced" meaning produced by including the most damaging -
strikes to utility lines.


I didn't see where you quoted anything by IEEE or its experts that specify
actual rise times of any kind of surge, induced or otherwise.

From the Martzloff quote you didn't read:
"For a 1.2/50 us impulse". That is 1.2 microseconds rise time.

From w_'s favorite engineer source "an 8 microsecond rise time".

Don’t you read anything?

The numbers come from an IEEE standard - accepted by everyone but you.



| One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
| rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
| with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don?t get transmission line
| effects at 100kHz.

I agree that you don't get transmission line effects under 100 kHz for 200m
wires ... of any significance to worry about for surge matters.

OTOH, you have not shown how even if an 8 microsecond rise time is significant
as a representative case, that it can't get shorter than that in severe cases.
or even a higher rise voltage (which hasn't even been specified at all here).

I provided 2 direct sources. They follow IEEE standards for rise time.

Still never seen - a cite that supports your opinion.
It is Phil’s phantasy physics.


--
bud--

On May 4, 3:46 am, Franc Zabkar wrote:
OK, thanks. That all makes sense. However, I was thinking of a typical
2-pin TV, not an earthed computer.

Black AC wire surge is now shunted (clamped, diverted) to white
wire. Surge now has two paths to obtain earth ground via the TV.

One most common path to ground is TV's cable. Why? Cable TV is now
properly installed - connected (bonded) typically 'less than 10 feet'
to earth ground at the service entrance. If an AC line surge is
earthed at that same service entrance using the single point earth
ground, then no destructive surge circuit exists through that two wire
TV.

But the home owner believed myths of plug-in protectors instead of
learning why earthing (and 'whole house' protectors) is so important.
Whereas surge on cable TV is dissipated in earth, simultaneous surge
on AC electric arrives at an adjacent protector, is shunted to white
(neutral) AC wire, and now has two destructive paths via that TV to
earth ground. Eliminate the plug-in protector to have only one
potentially destructive incoming path (increased protection). Or
properly earth a 'whole house' protector to have zero potentially
destructive paths.

wrote:
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.


With no service panel suppressor it is well accepted that at about 6kV
there will be arc-over from bus to enclosure for (US) circuit breaker
panels. While arcing, the voltage will be hundreds of volts. Since the
panel/system ground is connected to the earth electrode (US) most of
surge energy is dumped to earth.

If talking about a plug-in suppressor, Experiments by Martzloff (the
idiot/member-of-the-IEEE) show surprisingly little energy reaches the
suppressor. Circuit impedance greatly limits the current, and thus
energy. Surprisingly, there is more energy at the MOV for lower surge
currents (on short branch circuits) because the MOV can hold the panel
voltage below the 6kV breakover voltage. With up to 10kA surges, the max
energy at the MOV was 34J with most cases below 1.2J.

--
bud--

On May 3, 11:38 pm, 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.

Broadcasting electronics atop the Empire State Building and World
Trade Center were struck 25 and 40 times annually without damage.
Commercial broadcasters with antennas thousands of feet up also suffer
such strikes and cannot suffer damage. Your telco with switching
centers in every town; with their $multi-million switching computer
connected to overhead wires all over town; must suffer such surges
routinely without damage. Mid 1900 research indicates a thunderstorm
typically creates maybe 100 surges - and no damage.

Likely the outgoing path through that scale was via concrete floor.
What was the incoming path? Well what in that circuit was damaged?
Or was it only data loss, which means hardware protected itself when
too much surge current was permitted inside the building?

How many days did your telco require to reprogram that switching
center computer after every thunderstorm? They can suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm and not even suffer data loss - let alone
hardware damage? Exactly. Effective protection means every wire in
every incoming cable has a short connection to earth via a 'whole
house' protector AND separation of up to 50 meters between the
protector and electronics. Not used are plug-in protectors. Any
protection that would work at the equipment is already inside the
equipment. Not acceptable is damage from lightning – even data loss.
And if damage does occur, telco located and corrected an earthing
defect.

Another example in Central Florida where Orange County's emergency
response system suffered lightning damage. Lightning damage
eliminated by fixing the defect - earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Same is described by van Deursen and van der Laan when lightning
caused damage to a nuclear hardened maritime radio station. Did they
cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can stop lightning damage"? Of course not.
Their IEEE paper describes how earthing defects (human failures) were
fixed. Lightning damage directly traceable to a defect in the
earthing system – human failure.

It is routine to suffer even the most massive surges and no surge
damage. Lightning routinely strikes communication facilities on Hoher
Peissenberg mountain in southern Germany - without damage.
Researchers even mounted electronics equipment to measure the currents
of each surge. Did direct lightning strike destroy that electronics
and communication equipment? Or course not. It is routine to suffer
direct strikes without electronics damage. However the human must
first learn what provides that protection - especially proper
connections to earth ground.

What makes surge protection so challenging? We can test other
designs. But we cannot test the surge protection system. Therefore,
when damage does occur, the responsible human locates and learns his
mistake - often must correct a defective in that earthing system.
Numerous professional citations also describe learning from the damage
because lightning damage is so easily avoid.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. As Phil
correctly notes:
But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on it.

Simple earthing to meet NEC requirements creates significant
protection. High reliability facilities may spend even hundreds more
to obtain but a little more protection. On average, a destructive
surge may occur once every seven years. How much would you spend.
$20 for some earthing rods to significantly upgrade protection; or
$hundreds to also have protection installed in Central Florida:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
How much was that data worth? A question asked of others since Tony
Hwang routinely denies this stuff. He suffered massive station
damage. Then he declared nothing can protect from lightning even
though his industry peers says completely otherwise.

Timothy Daniels wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

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.

[ElectoMagnetic Pulse]

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,

[Equivalent Series Resistance - the total of all internal resistances
of a capacitor measured in Ohms.]

and that they were working because they were all on UPS

[Uninterruptible Power Supply]

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

[Studio-to-Transmitter Link (see http://www.fmamtv.com/rdstl.html)]

was mounted on the tower in a steel NEMA box, and lost the LO

[Local Oscillator]

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

[Electrical Metallic Tubing, i.e. metal conduit]

between the rack and the tower. That was 20 years ago. They
have had strikes since then, but no problems.

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?


The same thing we did in the studios and transmitter sites. Use a
combination of protection at the building's main disconnect, and
individual protection at each critical device. The only thing that I've
lost in the last ten years was when lightning hit a huge pine tree, and
cut the top half of it off. It landed on the ground right over the
buried telephone line, and a second strike blew out the modem and MOV
protection on the phone line. It also destroyed that underground phone
line. The replacement is in 1" PVC conduit to make it easier to
replace, just in case. I live right on the edge of a protected green
belt, in north central Florida. The tallest of those trees would fall a
couple feet from my house.

I lost power from that strike, but no other electronics.


--
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

w_tom wrote:

On May 3, 11:38 pm, 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.

Broadcasting electronics atop the Empire State Building and World
Trade Center were struck 25 and 40 times annually without damage.

yawn. WTF does this have to do with residential electrical service?


Commercial broadcasters with antennas thousands of feet up also suffer
such strikes and cannot suffer damage.


Bull****. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
are blowing smoke.


Your telco with switching
centers in every town; with their $multi-million switching computer
connected to overhead wires all over town; must suffer such surges
routinely without damage.


More bull****. They use the best protection that can, but some
damaged does happen.


Mid 1900 research indicates a thunderstorm
typically creates maybe 100 surges - and no damage.


Typical lightning storms in Florida are 1000 to 15000 in a half hour.


Likely the outgoing path through that scale was via concrete floor.
What was the incoming path? Well what in that circuit was damaged?
Or was it only data loss, which means hardware protected itself when
too much surge current was permitted inside the building?

How many days did your telco require to reprogram that switching
center computer after every thunderstorm?


What reprogramming?


They can suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm and not even suffer data loss - let alone
hardware damage?


No.


Exactly.


No.


Effective protection means every wire in
every incoming cable has a short connection to earth via a 'whole
house' protector AND separation of up to 50 meters between the
protector and electronics. Not used are plug-in protectors. Any
protection that would work at the equipment is already inside the
equipment. Not acceptable is damage from lightning – even data loss.
And if damage does occur, telco located and corrected an earthing
defect.

Another example in Central Florida where Orange County's emergency
response system suffered lightning damage. Lightning damage
eliminated by fixing the defect - earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Same is described by van Deursen and van der Laan when lightning
caused damage to a nuclear hardened maritime radio station. Did they
cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can stop lightning damage"? Of course not.
Their IEEE paper describes how earthing defects (human failures) were
fixed. Lightning damage directly traceable to a defect in the
earthing system – human failure.

It is routine to suffer even the most massive surges and no surge
damage. Lightning routinely strikes communication facilities on Hoher
Peissenberg mountain in southern Germany - without damage.
Researchers even mounted electronics equipment to measure the currents
of each surge. Did direct lightning strike destroy that electronics
and communication equipment? Or course not. It is routine to suffer
direct strikes without electronics damage. However the human must
first learn what provides that protection - especially proper
connections to earth ground.

What makes surge protection so challenging? We can test other
designs. But we cannot test the surge protection system. Therefore,
when damage does occur, the responsible human locates and learns his
mistake - often must correct a defective in that earthing system.
Numerous professional citations also describe learning from the damage
because lightning damage is so easily avoid.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. As Phil
correctly notes:
But it is a matter of how much you want to spend on it.

Simple earthing to meet NEC requirements creates significant
protection. High reliability facilities may spend even hundreds more
to obtain but a little more protection. On average, a destructive
surge may occur once every seven years. How much would you spend.
$20 for some earthing rods to significantly upgrade protection; or
$hundreds to also have protection installed in Central Florida:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
How much was that data worth? A question asked of others since Tony
Hwang routinely denies this stuff. He suffered massive station
damage. Then he declared nothing can protect from lightning even
though his industry peers says completely otherwise.


More bull****.


--
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

Tony Hwang wrote:

wrote:

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.

Plonk!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Phil is as deluded as ever.


--
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

w_tom wrote:
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.

Any competent source (including the IEEE guide) along with any competent
manufacturer will tell you 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 wires going to the
protected equipment.

This is apparently way to complicated for w_ to understand.

For a more detailed explanation, read (starting pdf page 39) the IEEE
guide titled "Ground potential rise"
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf

The same section explains how plug-in suppressors work.


Plug-in protector is not for and does not claim to protect from this
typically destructive type of surge.

Complete nonsense. Just another of w_'s bizarre ideas.

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.

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.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE is "to protect TV2, a second
multiport protector located at TV2 is required." Apparently a radical
idea for w_.

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."


What would have avoided above network damage? Homeowner later
installed and earthed a 'whole house' protector.

A power service suppressor is a real good idea. It does not protect
equipment connected to both power and signal wires if there is a high
voltage between those wires as in the example above. There are other
hazards that it also misses.

For independent advice read the IEEE or NIST guides. (Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective).

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
On May 3, 6:40 am, 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.

Complete nonsense.


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

The lie resurrected.
Still missing - a link to any source that says UL listed plug-in
suppressors made after 1998 are a problem.

And undersized is a red herring. UL requires at least a minimal size.
Suppressors with much higher ratings are readily and cheaply available.


Bud disputes this. Bud says if all wires connect to the same
protector, then surge energy somehow disappears.

Poor w__ is unable to understand the IEEE guide. Clearly explained
(starting pdf page 40) - plug-in suppressors work primarily 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 also explains earthing occurs
elsewhere, not through the plug-in suppressor.


Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why do all but one of w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

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

--
bud--

On May 4, 11:13 am, Tony Hwang wrote:
Prpbably wannabee ham came from CB crowd when Morse code
requirement was dropped.

Technology cannot be challenged? So you attack the messenger? Rush
Limbaugh would be proud. Same mockery also proved Saddam had WMDs.
At what point do you learn from professional citations - ask questions
about the science?

Ham radio operators who actually know enough about electricity to
understand surge protection also define protection in terms of
earthing. How many QST articles did you ignore – therefore not
understand what Phil, et al post? Another ham who learned: Bill
Otten in rec.radio.shortwave on 5 Aug 2005 entitled "grounding and
surge":
http://tinyurl.com/79xoa
and
http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/

Another station engineer who also says surge damage is avoidable -
but then, unlike Tony Hwang, he did his job; learned from his
experience:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a
strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines
knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to
go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just
a low ohm DC path.

You claim to be a responsible station engineer. But you had a
lightning strike that created building damage and communication
equipment damage. No decent broadcasting engineer would have
considered that acceptable. Only one who did not even learn from QST
magazine would post foolishly blame Ufer grounds for making damage.

Yes an Ufer ground can result in damage when installed by a layman
who failed to learn the science. Rather than learn, Tony Hwang
declares failure as acceptable. Why are Ufer ground used? Because
Ufer grounding provided protection from direct strikes even to
munitions storage lockers - without damage. How curious. Ufer ground
work great where Tony Hwang is not in charge. Since Tony's facility
was not properly constructed or properly maintained, then Tony
considers damage acceptable. Failure is acceptable.

Educated station managers know lightning damage need not ever cause
damage. When damage does happen, then responsible station managers
find and eliminate the mistake. Tony Hwang knows otherwise; damage is
acceptable - that nothing can protect from lightning. So Tony Hwang
posts mockery and insults - and no technical facts.

How curious. Tony's peers learn from the damage, then eliminated
it.

wrote:

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 either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it.

Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)

Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.

(But this is *Phil* - why should he need sources?)

--
bud--

On May 4, 2:55 pm, wrote:
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.

In short, your post is saying what my post said. 120 volt
electronics have long had protection up to 600 volts as defined by
industry standards. This was always accomplished without MOVs.
Notice all the dimmer switches replaced weekly due to surge damage?
Not replaced because even those devices contain significant internal
protection - without MOVs.

The differential mode surge (what a plug-in protector can protect
from) typically does no damage as indicated by the large numbers of
appliances - even smoke detectors - that survive these trivial
surges. Survive without MOV protectors because internal protetion is
provided as part of the design - not an add on provided by MOVs.

The typically destructive surge occurs maybe one every seven years.
This is the surge that must be earthing before entering building.
This is the surge that so easily overwhelms protection inside
appliances. This is the surge that makes the properly earthing 'whole
house' protector necessary and so effective.

Yes, it is possible to make other protectors - absorption type.
Industry benchmarks also provide other examples including bulkheads.
Surges running through these bulkheads are further impeded. But each
is supplementary protection. To be effective, typically quite large
or expensive (Surgex, Brickwall, Zerosurge, etc). . How much is one
willing to spend? Effective supplmentary protection is also quite
expensive. Anything less is already found inside an appliance.

Yes, a plug-in protector can provide protection. Does it increase
protection by 80% or 95%. Protection so massive that the homeowner
may never see another surge in his lifetime?. Even a simplest
(properly installed) 'whole house' protector should provide protection
that significant. Without that 'whole hosue' protector, then plug-in
protectors may even contribute to appliance damage. To be effective -
to not contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance, a plug-in
protector needs a properly earthed 'whole house' system. Again, I
have not talked pass Bud. Bud promotes supplemental protection as a
complete solution. Defined by you and I are a surge a plug-in
protector might protect from AND why a plug-in protector can also
contribute to appliance damage.

Yes, your TV antenna examples are also correct - including how
either can be damaged. That being too complicated for most readers
AND irrelevant if both antenna wires are properly installed. Before
antenna wires enter a building, both antenna wires must first make a
short connection to the single point earth ground - meaning protection
standard in TV tuners should not be overwhelmed. Same protection also
installed by the cable company.

Only Bud is limiting himself to one aspect of the issue. You and I
are both discussing the many types of surges including the other that
typically causes most damage. Bud must ignore that typically
destructive surge. Those surges also create Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000
volt earthed destructively through an adjacent TV. Those surges are
why his other citation says:
The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Those surges that typically do damage AND that plug-in protectors do
not claim to protect from - Bud ignores that entire discussion.

----------------------------
"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:dncTj.112858$rd2.31639@pd7urf3no...
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, you are showing some confusion. Phil is right in that he is
bringing out a point that normal lumped RLC circuit theory doesn't handle
because it essentially treats the speed of propagation of electrical signals
as if it were infinite- which isn't true.

1)Current (not current flow which is meaningless) is NOT energy.
Current*voltage*time IS energy-
..
2)Also, on energizing a line whether it is open or closed, there is a
current flow as the applied voltage "sees" the characteristic impedance of
the line (wire or whatever) so a current will flow-even on an open circuit-
until there is a modifying reflection from the termination. For a house the
distances are such that this may be of the order of 0.1-0.2 microsecond.
After all such reflections at terminations have ceased or are negligable,
conventional circuit theory is applicable.
In these situations, you are dealing with wave propagation rather than
conventional circuit theory.
This is the regime that is of interest in considering "surge protectors"

As to the advantage of "whole house" vs local surge protection, "whole house
protection depends on distances to all "protected" items being small. Local
protection doesn't but is simply that- local. The effectiveness of either
depends considerably on grounding and other factors.

The spate of name calling doesn't do anything of use to anybody.
--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

On May 4, 9:57*pm, bud-- wrote:
Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)

Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.

Every Bud citations contradicts Bud's claims. So Bud must do what
those without knowledge do - post insults.

Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.
Good. Bud can post those manufacture spec numbers that list each type
of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. 400 requests and Bud
still cannot provide any specs? So Bud must post insults.

How to identify the liar - who does exactly what Rush Limbaugh
does? He posts no facts (no manufacturer spec numbers) and his posts
are only insults. Bud posts only insults. That says Bud lies (and
that he has not technical facts). But then profits are at risk. That
justifies anything.

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet wrote:
| 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.

There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
the impedance. It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
there.

Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
theory.

Two sources directly contradict Phil.

Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.

--
bud--

On May 3, 4:16 am, bud-- wrote:
...
And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.
...
Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
papers on surges and suppression.

Both of Bud's citations - guides for laymen - describe how a plug-in
protector can work AND how such devices can even create appliance
damage. Both state what an effective protector needs - short
connection to earth ground. Both state why a protector without
earthing can even contribute to appliance damage.

Even Martzloff is quite blunt about this. Bud quotes from Martzloff
selectively. Meanwhile this conclusion is so fundamental that
Martzloff makes it the first point in his IEEE paper:
Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

A plug-in (point of connection) protector can contribute to
appliance damage. Every Bud citation says that. Even Martzloff says
that. Why do professionals routinely install 'whole house' type
protectors instead of plug-in protectors? "Objectionable difference
in … voltages ... [when] protective devices are ... at the point of
connection". Industry professionals note this problem with plug-in
protectors. Also are those 'scary pictures of plug-in protectors
located where fire hazards are greater. Bud conveniently ignores all
that. Profits are at risk.

On May 4, 9:14 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Bull****. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
are blowing smoke.

People who are more than TV repairmen learn from their mistakes and
correct reasons for that failure. TV repairmen only fix defects -
never bother to learn how those failures can be avoided. Let's have
some fun. Let's reply using the same mockery and insult that Michael
uses. Except this post will be accurate about Michaels intelligence.

Others who bother to learn discover what happens when a radio
station repeatedly gets knocked off the air. Eventually that station
engineer may hire someone who knows more than a TV repairman. What
was the solution to so much radio station damage? They fixed mistakes
made by a naive station engineer. They installed and upgreaded
earthing. No more lightning damage.

Michael will deny reality because Michael knows without first
learning facts. Others can learn what Michael Terrell denies.
Lightning need not cause damage when one thinks, instead, like an
engineer. Michael Terrell who learned to think like and engineer -
not like the technician - would know this. Radio station repeatedly
damaged. Then they finally admited that failure is not acceptable:
http://www.copper.org/applications/e.../nebraska.html

Based on a belief that "too much" grounding was attracting
lightning strikes, grounding connections on the tower's six
sets of guy wires had been disconnected sometime in the
past (Figure 4). This action may, in fact, have helped direct
lightning discharge current down the antenna tower itself,
bringing the strike closer to the studio/transmitter building.

Why did the station engineer make damage easier? He could not
bother to learn about stuff even published in QST magazine - the ham
radio operator's magazine.

Why does Michael Terrell deny this? He is a technician - a TV
repairman. His posts attack the messenger rather than address
technology. Michael Terrell is correct. Some stations are knocked
off the air by lightning. Those with informed station engineers
correct the defect - learn from their mistakes and eliminate future
failures. Michael Terrell's attitude declares failure as acceptable.
But then Michael Terrell could not think like an engineer which is why
he also could never be promoted above enlistedman.

On May 4, 9:24*am, "Tantalust" wrote:
"w_tom" wrote in message
snip
* 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".

Hey, I LIKED reading Golden Books to my kids. They didn't like W-TOMs
posts at all.

GG

In article d4a62a8a-464b-461f-a297-b6bc581749c3
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...
On May 4, 9:57*pm, bud-- wrote:
Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)

Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.

Every Bud citations contradicts Bud's claims.

Don't be so stupid.

So Bud must do what
those without knowledge do - post insults.

Anything truthful posted about you would be an insult to a normal
person.

Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.

Bull****. Either you're a goddamned liar or are denser than a
concrete slab. He's repeatedly said there is *no* protection from a
direct strike (except to be elsewhere).

Good. Bud can post those manufacture spec numbers that list each type
of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. 400 requests and Bud
still cannot provide any specs? So Bud must post insults.

Ok, that answers it. You *are* a liar.

How to identify the liar - who does exactly what Rush Limbaugh
does? He posts no facts (no manufacturer spec numbers) and his posts
are only insults. Bud posts only insults. That says Bud lies (and
that he has not technical facts). But then profits are at risk. That
justifies anything.

There goes W, doing what he claims others do; not only stupid, but a
liar and hypocrite, to boot.

--
Keith

On May 4, 11:35 am, 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.

If must be said eight times - and still not understood by trader -
because that is the point. He does not want to understand it.

BTW, prim and proper Englishmen insist we must never mix first,
second, and third person. They don't worry about being misinterpreted
since misinterpretation is part of being prim and proper.

Better is to mix first and third person often so that the only
thing important - the message - cannot be misconstrued. If he chooses
to do so, no problem. If w_tom chooses to do so, no problem. If I
choose to do so, no problem. Exact same meaning to everyone except
the prim and proper Englishman who would now get all caught up in a
tizzy.

No problem. trader still will deny a fact stated eight times.

All appliances contain internal protection. That protection is not
provided by MOVs no matter how many times trader says otherwise.
Protection that may be overwhelmed if the typically destructive surge
is not earthed by a 'whole house' protector. Facts remain no matter
which person is used.

Again, referring to trader's latest myth: increasingly complex
electronics now contain even better protection than those earlier,
less complex electronics. Today, international standard now require
signal interface ICs to withstand 2000 and 15,000 volts without
damage. Previous interfaces in less complex electronics could only
withstand 30 or 40 volts. trader should have known these numbers long
before he posted more myths. Increasing complex electronics are even
more robust - less likely to suffer surge damage. But again, trader
knew long before learning any facts.

On May 4, 1:24 pm, "Tantalust" wrote:
Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down to people
as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?

Ask polite or technical questions, and get straight honest
responses. If you think my tone was offensive, then review your
original post. Post like an emotional child and get a stern response.

Franc Zabkar asked a question without an incendiary intent.
Therefore a straight and honest answer. My posts to you was blunt and
honest. How blunt? It did not contain a single insulting statement or
implication. It was a hard straight answer - nothing more. And it was
appropriately terse where you make claims or denial without any
supporting facts. If you need sweet words, go find a spouse. Was
your question incendiary or based in technical curiosity?

You were neither mocked nor insulted. Your technical mistakes were
corrected accurately. Neither your emotions nor your children have a
place here. This is a technical discussion about an unpopular reality
– about facts known even 100 years ago and that contradict both
popular urban legend and retail store propaganda.

Nobody - you, me, or anyone else (should) cares about your
emotions. Your emotions don't belong in a technical discussion. You
were not mocked or insulted - just technically replied to. You don't
like the tone. Your first post set the tone. Anything after that was
simply your reflection in a mirror.

w_tom wrote:

On May 4, 9:14 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Bull****. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
are blowing smoke.

People who are more than TV repairmen learn from their mistakes and
correct reasons for that failure. TV repairmen only fix defects -
never bother to learn how those failures can be avoided. Let's have
some fun. Let's reply using the same mockery and insult that Michael
uses. Except this post will be accurate about Michaels intelligence.


If that is true, you will never learn anything. _wacko_tom. BTW, if
you are going to damn others, al least proofread your message before you
hit send. I'm sorry that yo never made it past TV repairman, but I left
that field in the early '70s. That was over 35 years ago, on the day I
was drafted. You are still stuck in the past, quoting things from
organizations that either no longer exist, or have updated their
information. Tell us _wacko_tom, how much of your work is in orbit? Or
used by NASA, NOAA, or the ESA? Tell everyone what you do for a living,
then bore us to death with more of your inane BS, like your claim that
all computers MUST work down to 90 volts because the now deceased CBEMA
said so. Or the fact that you refuse to admit that new version of
standards supersede older ones.

Now, lets examine your intelligence. ... ... ... 0.000. Well, that
didn't take very long.


--
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

w_tom wrote:

Rush Limbaugh would be proud.


Only of your unending ignorance. That is, if he wasn't afraid that
you were trying to take his job as a fat, drug addicted idiot with a
talk show.


--
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 bud-- wrote:
| wrote:
| In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:
| | wrote:
| | In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:
|
| | | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
| | | the experiment".
| |
| | I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
| | the explanations.
| |
| | Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
| | reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
| | of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
| | for which you have no supporting cite.
|
| You are likely to never see any citation that attests to what I believe.
|
| Because some of what you believe has nothing to do with the real world.

Which somes are that?


| | And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
| | by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
| | apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
| | with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.
|
| I've _met_ electrical engineers that are idiots. I've met people in a
| lot of other fields that are idiots.
|
| I don't know if the authors of what you have read are idiots. Maybe they
| are just not writing as broadly as you think they are.
|
| Of course they are idiots. They are all members of the IEEE. Only idiots
| can join. And only the biggest idiots can write publications for the IEEE.

Your words, not mine.


| Martzloff is not only an IEEE idiot. He worked for the NIST - another
| well known lair of idiots.

Your words, not mine.


| Thank goodness you aren?t a member.

Yeah, right.


| | For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
| | less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
| | of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
| | within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
| | but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
| | frequency energy issues entirely.
| |
| | Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
| | papers on surges and suppression. In one of them he wrote:
| | "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
| | often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
| | systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
| | concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
| | the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
| | the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
| | classical transmission line behavior."
| | Residential branch circuits aren't 200m.
| |
| | Your response: "Then he flubbed the experiment." In another case you
| | have said Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
|
| I addressed this one elsewhere. You seem to have misunderstood him.
| He did not say that wiring systems do not exhibit transmission line
| characteristics.
|
| If you had actually read the quote:
| "*it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line concepts to
| wiring systems*"
| and "*this means that the line must be at least 200 m long before one
| can think in terms of classical transmission line behavior*."
|
| Repeating: "Residential branch circuits aren't 200m."

You are now taking what Martzloff said out of context. He _qualified_
what he said in terms of a statement conditional. Following the part
you just now quoted is "... if the front of the wave is not shorter than
the travel time of the impulse." Then he added "For a 1.2/50 us impulse,
this means that the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think
in terms of classical transmission line behavior."

Hint: what "if" means is that if the conditional is not met, then the
statement does not apply.

Martzloff's statement is actually correct. Your quoting of it is wrong.
I suspect your understanding of it is weak or maybe even wrong. I believe
you are misapplying it. Then when _my_ statement contradicts _your_
incorrect understanding, you somehow think *I* am contradicting him.

His statement is qualified for a specific slow impulse rise time that
corresponds to a lower frequency. He has NOT said (in what you quoted
in earlier posts here) that no surge can ever have a faster rise time.
He has NOT said that you cannot think in terms of transmission line
behaviour for faster rise times, even on shorter wiring/circuits.

I recall there being something he said that I would contradict, but THIS
statement is NOT it.


| Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
| at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases.
|
| Like branch circuits under 200 meters long.

See description of your error above.


| | You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
| | times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
| | derived.
|
| So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?
|
| I intended "induced" meaning produced by including the most damaging -
| strikes to utility lines.

The most damaging strikes tend to be ones that are NOT induced. Do you
understand what induction and inductive coupling is?

Lightning does not have to directly strike the wire for there to be a
surge on it. That is induction when there is no direct strike. If the
strike _is_ directly on the wires, that's different (and has the exposure
of substantially more voltage/current).


| I didn't see where you quoted anything by IEEE or its experts that specify
| actual rise times of any kind of surge, induced or otherwise.
|
| From the Martzloff quote you didn't read:
| "For a 1.2/50 us impulse". That is 1.2 microseconds rise time.

Oh I read it. You are making presumptions because I did not conclude
the same thing you concluded.

Because he said "For a ...", he is describing an example scenario and
giving the calculated line length where transmission line effects become
significant enough to consider.


| From w_'s favorite engineer source "an 8 microsecond rise time".
|
| Don?t you read anything?

If you had simply said "Don't you read _everything_" then I would have
agreed with you. And that would be because I actually do not read a
lot of, or maybe most of, w_tom posts. I don't even see them all
because he is posting from Google Groups. So I don't know what, or
how much, I missed from him.

And I don't care.

OTOH, I have read the original quotes of Martzloff's statements that you
made, and then I read the subsequent quotes where you have trimmed them
to change the apparent context to support assertions you seem to be making
that Martzloff is not actually supporting.


| The numbers come from an IEEE standard - accepted by everyone but you.

The numbers are example cases. Read what YOU QUOTED ... CAREFULLY!


| | One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
| | rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
| | with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don?t get transmission line
| | effects at 100kHz.
|
| I agree that you don't get transmission line effects under 100 kHz for 200m
| wires ... of any significance to worry about for surge matters.
|
| OTOH, you have not shown how even if an 8 microsecond rise time is significant
| as a representative case, that it can't get shorter than that in severe cases.
| or even a higher rise voltage (which hasn't even been specified at all here).
|
| I provided 2 direct sources. They follow IEEE standards for rise time.
|
| Still never seen - a cite that supports your opinion.

Why should I even bother? The more you post, and the more you take things
out of context, and the more you misunderstand what you quote, the more I
realize there is no point in making further efforts for you.


| It is Phil?s phantasy physics.

Or Bud's fantasy prose?

--
|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 bud-- wrote:
| wrote:
| In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet wrote:
| | 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.
|
| There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
| the impedance. It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
| itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
| there.
|
| Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
| theory.

Not understanding it is your loss.


| Two sources directly contradict Phil.

What sources? Your truncated out of context quotes?


| Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.

I don't care.

--
|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 bud-- wrote:
| wrote:
|
| 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 either does not understand the high frequency energy or just does
| not believe it can happen. All lightning strikes have it.
|
| Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
| they are not as smart as Phil.)

Bud has quoted people like Martzloff out of context.


| Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.

Phil doesn't care.


| (But this is *Phil* - why should he need sources?)

Why should he care?

--
|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 bud-- wrote:
| wrote:
| 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.
|
|
| With no service panel suppressor it is well accepted that at about 6kV
| there will be arc-over from bus to enclosure for (US) circuit breaker
| panels. While arcing, the voltage will be hundreds of volts. Since the
| panel/system ground is connected to the earth electrode (US) most of
| surge energy is dumped to earth.

But what is remaining, in a significant surge, is still capable of causing
damage. A surge already has some high frequency energy. That moves on past
the point of arc even before the arc happens. Once the arc is established,
it can then produce its own high frequency effects. Ignoring this leaves
you open to more damage.


| If talking about a plug-in suppressor, Experiments by Martzloff (the
| idiot/member-of-the-IEEE) show surprisingly little energy reaches the
| suppressor. Circuit impedance greatly limits the current, and thus
| energy. Surprisingly, there is more energy at the MOV for lower surge
| currents (on short branch circuits) because the MOV can hold the panel
| voltage below the 6kV breakover voltage. With up to 10kA surges, the max
| energy at the MOV was 34J with most cases below 1.2J.

I've seen surge energy reach an appliance that is significant enough to cause
complete melt through of AWG #8 copper conductors. There was no protection
installed in that particular case.

--
|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) |

w_tom wrote:

Same is described by van Deursen and van der Laan when lightning
caused damage to a nuclear hardened maritime radio station. Did they
cry, "Woe is me. Nothing can stop lightning damage"? Of course not.

Nono. They cried "w_tom is me. Stop lightning damage I can."

Nick

"w_tom" wrote in message
...
On May 4, 1:24 pm, "Tantalust" wrote:
Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down to
people
as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?

Ask polite or technical questions =snip=

"Boys and girls....claaaasss........be *polite* to our nice, kind
kindergarten teacher.....". LOLOL

"w_tom" wrote

Yes, plug-in protectors do have limited protective functions.

Look at poor w_tom starting his back-pedalling.
Back-pedalling, back-pedalling, back-pedalling.

"G-squared" wrote in message
...
On May 4, 9:24 am, "Tantalust" wrote:
"w_tom" wrote in message
snip
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".

Hey, I LIKED reading Golden Books to my kids. They didn't like W-TOMs
posts at all.

GG

I loved Golden Books too... I'm 55 going on 90 and I still read mine
everyday! ;-)

In article 74683977-6a03-4695-a5a2-
,
says...
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?

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.

I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America
and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet;
computer power cords are 3 wire?