Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
#162
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
#163
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
? ?????? ??? ?????? ... On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:21:16 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" wrote: Ο "Tantalust" έγραψε στο μήνυμα m... "NB" wrote in message ... Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? He an obsessive-compulsive disorder victim, apparently driven by some kind of bizarre fetish involving ground rods. What kind of ground rods? I prefer steel core, copper clad ones:-) I even have the special heavy hammer I'm on 2000' of sand, and at the moment, my house earth is the copper 2000'? I am only 5'10":-) water pipes, but the water corp keep adding plastic bits here and there, so I don't really trust it. I was going to hammer in a 20' length of 3/4" copper pipe under a large tree which gets the drain from my grey water. Probably the best I can do. Perhaps you should get a proper earthing electrode, with a spiked end and a stell core? It would be really difficult to hammer 20' of 3/4" copper pipe. They are not that expensive. I'm not a full bottle on earth loops yet so i don't know about leaving the water mains connection still connected. The earth loops matter only in electronic circuits, like amplifiers and the like. In electricity, the play no role, in fact they reduce even further the earth resintance. What's the best way to test an earth? I heard once that a large electric radiator (fire) connected between active (hot) and the earth will glow as per normal if the earth has good capacity. Perhaps a current comparison between the earth return and neutral return would be more informative? Although the neutral is at zero potential, still carries a large current. The earth not. Since the neutral point of the LV side of the local substation is earthed, for the electricity "is all the same" between neutral and earth, depending on the neutral earthing system. -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr |
#164
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote: On May 4, 9:09 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: 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. You suffered damage from a lightning strike and call that effective protection? Modems are most typically damaged by surges entering an AC mains. Outgoing surge path would be the phone line to earth via a telco installed 'whole house' protector. Damage from lightning is effective protection? After spending how much for all those protectors, you call that protection? Where did I say HOW was protected? It was my second week at that station, and the chief engineer took off on a long overdue vacation. If you would learn to read, rather than just do mindless rants you wouldn't look so stupid. At that time the building had a UFER ground, and a three phase protection system at the meter CTs. That didn't prevent the damage, as you claim it should. Phone lines do not use MOV protectors. Basic information that you would have learned if not wasting time insulting people. Sorry, _wacko_ but you are the one slinging insults and ignoring proof from hundreds of people. MOVs have too much capacitance. Phone line 'whole house' protectors use other technologies with lower capacitance. Gee, _wacko_ you've never seen ANY modern business telephone equipment? Gas tubes are fragile and very expensive. The protection isn't to save the privately owned telephones, it it to limit damage to the building. Even that mid '60s 1A2 system had every output of the power supply fused to prevent a fire. Explain why an MOV's capacitance is high enough to affect a phone line. Never mind. I have a Nitsuko/NEC DX2NA-32SYTEMEM KEY TELEPHONE SYSTEM in front of me, and every CO line in it has a MOV across the line. Once more, you're preaching lies and using deceit to try to make others look bad. ,http://refurbishednitsuko.net/productInfo.aspx?productID=75978489-9ac8-40c1-9496-559bfc01b4d3 is the Central Office line card for four telephone lines. See the black MOVs to the right of each pair of fuses? http://refurbishednitsuko.net/productInfo.aspx?productID=f5453e33-047e-4726-8631-50a929aabedf is the card for four standard 2500 type telephones, or equivalent equipment. See the pairs of black MOVs over the blue connectors at the bottom of the screen? They are all japanese, with no brand markings. http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/Publications/PDF/SIOVMetalOxideVaristors,property=Data__en.pdf;/SIOVMetalOxideVaristors.pdf is the Epcos MOV databook, with datasheets for Telecom applications. page 213 list the TELECOM MOV data. Every line into that studio building had a long distance call device diverter in the line that had MOV across the phone line. Every one of them survived the direct hit to the building and STL tower. That's more than can be said of your ability to use reason, and learn new things. You need to get your head out of 1920 and learn modern electronics. The one thing we learned today is that you don't know any more about Telecom that you do lightning protection, or reading comprehension. -- 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 |
#165
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
Jitt wrote: In article , says... I wonder why, since electrical codes in North America and Britain require a ground connection at each outlet; computer power cords are 3 wire? (snip) hot neutral ground I suppose I phrased the question badly. I wonder why a surge would wander around looking for ground, when its available in the box! They don't discriminate. They look for every possible path to ground. -- 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 |
#167
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
#168
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote:
On May 5, 2:35 pm, bud-- wrote: The IEEE guide is aimed at "electricians, architects, technicians, and electrical engineers who were not protection specialists." Industry standard facts and embarrassing questions.that Bud will ignore to lie and to promote plug- in protector sales Lacking any valid technical arguments poor w_ has to try to discredit opponents. My only association with surge protectors is I have some. 1) How does that plug-in protector provide protection without the 'always necessary' earth ground? What does a protector do? Bud provides only two citations. Both disagree with his claims. The NIST bluntly defines what a protector must do - Page 6: What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". 2) Bud not only denies this also so important single point earth ground. If w_ could only read he would have seen my emphasis on a *short* 'ground' wire from phone/cable entry protectors to the 'ground' at the power service. w_ appears to want all wires run to the grounding electrode. That does not provide the minimum voltage between power and signal wires. Martzloff has written "the impedance of the grounding system to 'true earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system." And the case where phone/cable entry points are too far distant from power service, IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector." He also ignores what happens when a protector is too far from earth and too close to appliances. Page 42 Figure 8: the surge earthed 8000 volts destructively through appliances. This is the second point from his citations that Bud must ignore. The illustration has 2 TVs. The IEEE says the point of the illustration is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." Way to complicated for w_. 3) So if a plug-in protector is effective protection, then manufacturer specs will list each type of surge and protection from that surge. Bud never provides that spec either. "Each type of surge" is nonsense. w_'s favored SquareD service panel suppressors do not have specs for "each type of surge". Lacking valid technical arguments has to invent problems. Plug-in protectors don't claim to protect from the type of surge that typically causes damage. Complete nonsense. Not one plug-in protector manufacturer will claim that protection - made obvious because Bud will not post those specs and ignored over 400 requests for those specs. Over 400 requests - another hallucination. Specs posted often and ignored. 4) No earth ground means no effective protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. w_'s religious belief (immune from challenge) in earthing has been the elephant in the closet. w_ believes a surge protector must directly earth a surge. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide also explains earthing does occur, just not primarily through the plug-in suppressor. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40). For accurate information on surges read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. Embarrassing questions that w_ will igno - 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)? -- bud-- |
#169
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote:
On May 5, 2:27 pm, Mike Tomlinson wrote: It is those nuances that w_**** fails to explain when he spouts his one- cure-for-all-ills religious mantra about every dwelling absolutely requiring whole-house surge protection. Mike Tomlinson has just posted in agreement. UK homes typically do not need what is necessary in FL homes. UK homes need not be earthed as central FL homes may be earthed: http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg Many homes have more than enough protection with only one earthed 'whole house' protector - and nothing else. Especially in the UK. That means spending tens (or maybe one hundred) times less money for protection of everything. UK homes may be more than sufficiently earthed with one 3 meter ground rod. Then one surge protector can provide more than sufficient protection for everything - eliminating maybe £500 or £2000 for plug- in protectors. Last I heard UK phone entry protectors did not clamp the voltage to earth. That allows high voltage between power and phone wires. w_’s favored service panel suppressor provides no protection from this hazard. -- bud-- |
#170
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
Don Kelly wrote:
---------------------------- "bud--" wrote in message .. . Don Kelly wrote: ---------------------------- "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. . 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" The last standards for simulating typical surge waveforms I have seen (IEEE) were 1.2 us rise time, 50 us duration 8 us rise time, 20 us duration a ring wave with a frequency about 100kHz. All are long relative to 0.2 microsecond, so wave propagation should not be relevant for household circuits. ---------------------------------------- Your point is true- the time interval is so small that for practical purposes it can be ignored. I am not denying that. Obviously I gave that impression- sorry for that. I was simply pointing out that phil had it right in theory and Tony had it wrong. After this time for the wave to travel to the end and be reflected (and other re-reflections die out) then conventional circuit theory is applicable. The fact that the time is extremely small simply means that we can pretend that it doesn't even exist. While Matzloff is right in the time for a round trip is of the order of 200m, it is also dangerous to assume that one can ignore waves for shorter distances. For example, a stroke to a tower of an EHV line (a lot less than 200m) will go down the tower, meet ground resistance and be reflected. Such reflections have been found to be more likely to cause flashover than direct strokes to the line (EPRI). Similarly, the practice in substations is not "whole station" protection (where this is applicable, it must be done considering a number of factors- quite interesting ) and putting specific protection as near as possible to the protected apparatus-definitely within, say, 10m. - It's not just the time to peak that is the critical factor. Do a lattice diagram approach or use Bergeron's method (Hermann Dommel did a lot of work with this at EPRI and has a lot of papers in IEEE- more dealing with switching surges than lightning). It's been a long time since I did any calculations in this area so I would have to brush up. I am real glad the probability of a direct house strike is low. I have some appreciation for the earthing/bonding required in a substation (also referred to by nobody). Now - is this all germane to household protection? You say not and I agree with you- because household equipment can ride through - at worst- doubling of the clamped voltage for a very short time even though the clamped voltage is relatively small compared to the peak of the incoming surge. -- The effect Martzloff was specifically looking for in experiments was doubling of voltage. As an aside, several of the experiments done by Martzloff were at EPRI. -- bud-- |
#171
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- wrote:
| wrote: | In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- wrote: | | wrote: | | In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote: | | | | w_' professional engineer source says 8 micoseconds with most of the | | | spectrum under 100kHz. | | | | Even with 1 nanosecond rise time, most of the energy will be present in | | the spectrum below 100 kHz. That means nothing when the surge is strong | | enough to have energy above some frequency that is relevant to the whole | | system involved that can do damage. That frequency might be 100 Mhz for | | some thing, and 1 GHz for other things. | | | | Still missing - your source. Nanosecond risetime. 100MHz spectrum. | | Observation. Of course this is a concept you cannot understand. | | Observation proves flying saucers and magic. | | Without supporting sources it is Phil's Phantasy Physics. | Where is a source that supports your belief in nanosecond risetimes and | 100MHz spectrum? Since you seem unwilling to just discuss technical aspects of things, I have to conclude that you simply do not understand what it is you read and quote. Too many times you quote out of context. I don't know where that is because you are trying to be manipulative or simply on account of ignorance. There is that old sayind "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance". I don't know if I should follow it's advice. There is no point in spending the effort to find some quotable source because you wouldn't know what to do with it. How could you possibly comprehend what I would give you if you can't even comprehend what you post. After this round of followups, I'm done with this thread and I'm done replying to you. If curing your ignorance is in your future, it will have to be from someone else. -- |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) | |
#172
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In alt.engineering.electrical Eric wrote:
| I can attest to vhf/uhf content in lightning strikes. I worked for a | communications outfit. We owned and maintained a number of comm sites | with towers and antennas. One strike on an antenna destroyed the LDF rf | cable all the way to the polyphaser at the bottom of the tower. It had | blowouts at about 1 foot intervals all down it's length suggesting a | 1/2 wave of about 1 foot or approx 460 mhz. That's one hell of a lot of | energy at that frequency.. Apparently you had some kind of resonance involved. Maybe the antenna itself can cause that. Or the output tank circuit in the transmitter. Once you have the resonance to narrowband the energy, it would only take a reflection back up the line and you turn a propogating surge into standing waves. -- |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) | |
#173
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote:
But when a plug-in protector is sold to maximize profits (not for protection), then grossly undersized protectors also create another problem - scary pictures: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since 1998. But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics. For reliable information on surges and protection read the IEEE and NIST guides. (Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.) -- bud-- |
#174
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
#175
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 5, 2:20*pm, wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical wrote: | On May 5, 1:44?am, wrote: | 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. | | | I have to agree that this is Phantasy Physics. * *We're supposed to | believe that a surge reaching a MOV is going to split 50-50, with half | of it going to the MOV path and half moving on down the line, | reagrdless of the impedance of the two paths? * *That would render all | surge protection about 50% effective. You did not read very carefully. *The reference to 50-50 split is about the contribution of the MOVs themselves. *That is an essential understanding of the components so the whole system can be figured out. *The impedance down the paths is another separate component, which also has to be figured in when determining the whole picture. You have confused a component with the entire system. *You need to read more carefully. *Or you need to understand the distinction of individual components as they apply to the whole system The whole wiring system is extrememly complex. *It cannot be understood properly without first understanding the components. *And that includes understanding that MOVs, when they conduct, do look to the propogating energy as two paths to go down, and it will (initially) go both ways in about an equal amount. Maybe you should review what you actually stated in the context of current surge supression discussion: " "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. " That sure sounds like 50% of the surge is going through the MOV and the other 50% is going on past it to the protected equipment. And that I would have to agree with Bud on, it's phantasy physics, because if it were true, no type of surge protection would work, because it would only be 50% effective. -- |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) | |
#176
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
#177
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
Ο "Tantalust" έγραψε στο μήνυμα . .. "NB" wrote in message ... Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? He an obsessive-compulsive disorder victim, apparently driven by some kind of bizarre fetish involving ground rods. What kind of ground rods? I prefer steel core, copper clad ones:-) I even have the special heavy hammer Can you trim W_tom with that?? Or is he incurable? |
#178
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 12:08*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: w_tom wrote: On May 4, 9:09 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: * *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. * You suffered damage from a lightning strike and call that effective protection? *Modems are most typically damaged by surges entering an AC mains. *Outgoing surge path would be the phone line to earth via a telco installed *'whole house' protector. *Damage from lightning is effective protection? *After spending how much for all those protectors, you call that protection? * *Where did I say HOW was protected? It was my second week at that station, and the chief engineer took off on a long overdue vacation. If you would learn to read, rather than just do mindless rants you wouldn't look so stupid. *At that time the building had a UFER ground, and a three phase protection system at the meter CTs. That didn't prevent the damage, as you claim it should. * Phone lines do not use MOV protectors. *Basic information that you would have learned if not wasting time insulting people. * *Sorry, _wacko_ but you are the one slinging insults and ignoring proof from hundreds of people. *MOVs have too much capacitance. *Phone line 'whole house' protectors use other technologies with lower capacitance. * *Gee, _wacko_ you've never seen ANY modern business telephone equipment? *Gas tubes are fragile and very expensive. The protection isn't to save the privately owned telephones, it it to limit damage to the building. *Even that mid '60s 1A2 system had every output of the power supply fused to prevent a fire. Explain why an MOV's capacitance is high enough to affect a phone line. Never mind. *I have a Nitsuko/NEC DX2NA-32SYTEMEM KEY TELEPHONE SYSTEM in front of me, and every CO line in it has a MOV across the line. *Once more, you're preaching lies and using deceit to try to make others look bad. ,http://refurbishednitsuko.net/productInfo.aspx?productID=75978489-9ac.... is the Central Office line card for four telephone lines. See the black MOVs to the right of each pair of fuses? http://refurbishednitsuko.net/productInfo.aspx?productID=f5453e33-047.... is the card for four standard 2500 type telephones, or equivalent equipment. See the pairs of black MOVs over the blue connectors at the bottom of the screen? They are all japanese, with no brand markings. http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/Publications/PDF/SIOV... is the Epcos MOV databook, with datasheets for Telecom applications. page 213 list the TELECOM MOV data. * *Every line into that studio building had a long distance call device diverter in the line that had MOV across the phone line. Every one of them survived the direct hit to the building and STL tower. That's more than can be said of your ability to use reason, and learn new things. * *You need to get your head out of 1920 and learn modern electronics. The one thing we learned today is that you don't know any more about Telecom that you do lightning protection, or reading comprehension. W_ denies MOVs are commonly used in typical electonics or modern appliances too. He had to, because he can't answer the obvious question of how MOVs can be used effectively in these applications, yet they can't work in plug-in protectors and the only way to get any protection is to have a nearby direct earth ground. Faced with the problem of MOVs providing protection in electronics/appliance without an earthground, he simply denies MOVs are used in electronics and appliances. Here's the references that I provvided him on that one: Here, from Appliance Magazine and Appliance Design websites: http://www.appliancedesign.com/CDA/A.../BNP_GUID_9-5-... "New thermally enhanced MOVs help protect a wide variety of low-power systems against damage caused by over-current, over-temperature and over-voltage faults, including lightning strikes, electrostatic discharge (ESD) surges, loss of neutral, incorrect input voltage and power induction. These devices help provide protection in a wide range of AC line applications, including AC mains LED lighting systems, PLC network adapters, cell-phone chargers, AC/DC power supplies (up to 30 VA as input power for 230 VAC input voltage), modem power supplies, AC panel protection modules, AC power meters, and home appliances. " http://www.appliancemagazine.com/pri...zone=1&first=1 "Protecting increasingly sophisticated and complex control boards from misconnection, power surges, or short circuit damage is of particular concern to the equipment manufacturer. Although appliance transformers, their enclosures, and connections are capable of withstanding higher voltage transients, the use of sensitive solid- state devices on the board necessitates improved overcurrent, overtemperature, and overvoltage control. Coordinating overcurrent and overvoltage protection can also help designers comply with safety agency requirements, minimize component count, and improve equipment reliability. A metal oxide varistor (MOV) overvoltage protection device used in a coordinated circuit- protection strategy with a line-voltage-rated PPTC overcurrent device helps manufacturers meet IEC 6100-4-5, the global standard for voltage and current test conditions for equipment connected to ac mains." |
#179
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In article , bud--
writes Martzloff has written "the impedance of the grounding system to 'true earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system." Indeed. This is an important principle of the UK wiring code. It's referred to as "equipotential bonding." Such a concept, of course, would be far beyond the understanding of w_'s lone brain cell. -- (\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista! (='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html (")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf |
#180
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In article , bud--
writes Last I heard UK phone entry protectors did not clamp the voltage to earth. You're quite correct. It's a practice that the GPO (forerunner to British Telecom) abandoned in the 1960s, showing how up to date w_'s "knowledge" is. -- (\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista! (='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html (")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf |
#181
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
wrote: Mike Tomlinson wrote: ... This is an important principle of the UK wiring code. It's referred to as "equipotential bonding." I wonder if "ring mains" (an extra wire from the last outlet to make a loop back to the fusebox) are legal in the US. Seems like a nice way to improve voltage regulation with a little extra wire, and if the ring wire only breaks in one place, all the outlets keep working. No, the are not legal in the US. -- 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 |
#182
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
wrote:
W_ denies MOVs are commonly used in typical electonics or modern appliances too. He had to, because he can't answer the obvious question of how MOVs can be used effectively in these applications, yet they can't work in plug-in protectors and the only way to get any protection is to have a nearby direct earth ground. Faced with the problem of MOVs providing protection in electronics/appliance without an earthground, he simply denies MOVs are used in electronics and appliances. Here's the references that I provvided him on that one: Here, from Appliance Magazine and Appliance Design websites: http://www.appliancedesign.com/CDA/A.../BNP_GUID_9-5-... "New thermally enhanced MOVs help protect a wide variety of low-power systems against damage caused by over-current, over-temperature and over-voltage faults, including lightning strikes, electrostatic discharge (ESD) surges, loss of neutral, incorrect input voltage and power induction. I had a microwave oven that had a MOV across the 120V line ahead of the power switch. The other side of the 120/240 20A circuit supplied a refrigerator. The loss of the neutral applied a good part of the 240V across the MOV when the refrigerator attempted to start. The MOV didn't last long! It would probably have been OK on the load side of the switch. I know that refrigerators should be alone on a "home run" circuit, and neutrals shouldn't be connected with wire nuts, but that wasn't how it was! My only complaint with some plug-in protectors is that the MOVs are often much too small. I've also seen some with only a line-line MOV. -- Virg Wall, P.E. |
#183
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
... This is an important principle of the UK wiring code. It's referred to as "equipotential bonding." I wonder if "ring mains" (an extra wire from the last outlet to make a loop back to the fusebox) are legal in the US. Seems like a nice way to improve voltage regulation with a little extra wire, and if the ring wire only breaks in one place, all the outlets keep working. Nick |
#184
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
#185
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In alt.engineering.electrical VWWall wrote:
| I had a microwave oven that had a MOV across the 120V line ahead of the | power switch. The other side of the 120/240 20A circuit supplied a | refrigerator. The loss of the neutral applied a good part of the 240V | across the MOV when the refrigerator attempted to start. | | The MOV didn't last long! It would probably have been OK on the load | side of the switch. | | I know that refrigerators should be alone on a "home run" circuit, and | neutrals shouldn't be connected with wire nuts, but that wasn't how it was! How would you connect a neutral? Doubled up on a receptacle device screw? The usual practice is to wire the neutral in a wire nut so it can feed the device in that box, as well as connect up and down stream, even if the device is removed. OTOH, I don't like wire nuts. I've seen them come loose even when wired together well. Maybe it was a defective nut. I definitely will try to avoid them when my new house gets built (a lot of bad electrical things will be avoided in it). | My only complaint with some plug-in protectors is that the MOVs are | often much too small. I've also seen some with only a line-line MOV. You had a plug-in protector for a double line (240V) circuit? Or are you just referring to the neutral as one of the lines? I'm still on the hunt for a plug-in surge suppressor power strip for 240V with NEMA 6-15P plug and NEMA 6-15R outlets. The MOVs between each line and ground need to be the ones appropriate for 120V (330V clamp rated) and the ones between the two lines appropriate for 240V (660V clamp rated). -- |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) | |
#186
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
#187
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 2:45 pm, Sjouke Burry
wrote: Can you trim W_tom with that?? Or is he incurable? He is incurable as long as others post outright lies and myths while denying what really provides surge protection. Now to discuss what is relevant. If in sand, a single ground rod is probably insufficient earthing. For example, a FL couple suffered repeated direct lightning strikes to their bathroom wall. They have lightning rods installed. Lightning again struck that exterior wall. Lightning rods were earthed by 8' ground rods only in sand. Plumbing inside that wall connected to deeper (more conductive) limstone. Lightning found a better connection to deeper limestone via the bathroom wall. What will provide sufficient earthing? Without knowledge of the underlying geology, some will expand that earthing with a buried wire around the entire building (halo or ring ground). Others will may install a large and interconnected network of ground rods. Do you need that much? Expanding the earthing may be easier than learned later it was not sufficient. Also useful is to canvas the neighborhood to learn what others have experienced for ten or more years. Reducing earth resistance is not as important as creating single point ground with a shorter connection, more conductive (impedance) than any other path, AND creating equipotential beneath the building. Too many assume a water pipe is better because it is longer. But a better earth ground meets two slightly different criteria - conductivity and equipotential. IOW some ground rods located short to all 'whole house' protectors may be superior earthing than the water pipe. Appreciate that wire length may be more critical than the size of an earthing electrode. |
#188
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 5:01 pm, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
Indeed. This is an important principle of the UK wiring code. It's referred to as "equipotential bonding." Such a concept, of course, would be far beyond the understanding of w_'s lone brain cell. UK wiring code alone does not provide sufficient earthing for something not intended to address. Code addresses earthing for human safety. Proper earthing for surge protection must both meet and exceed code requirements. Essential for surge protection is that all utilities be earthed very short to the same earthing electrode. UK code does not require that. In fact, many UK master sockets have no earthing connection meaning no phone line protection. Mike Tomlinson posts insults when he does not have facts. Those who would promote magic box plug-in protectors are same who also post these insults. Same technique used by Rush Limbaugh to prove Saddam had WMDs. Single point earth ground remains essential to surge protection - which only makes people like Mike Tomlinson post more insults. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. An effective protector makes a 'less than 10 foot' connection to that earth ground rod. |
#189
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 1:00 pm, bud-- wrote:
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. Bud will only challenge the hanford link because he cannot challenge those 'scary pictures'. One is a Boston building fire last year created by a plug-in protector. Another is a fire marshal describing why plug-in protectors can create house fires. And pictures from fire departments showing a problem seen too often. And then Bud posts a half fact. UL1449 was created on 28 Aug 1985 - not in 1998 as Bud claims. Why would Bud do this? Profits are at risk - another fact that Bud must avoid admitting. So where is this plug-in protector spec that claims to provide protection? Oh. It does not exist because plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide this protection. Bud refuses to post a specification for one simple reason. There is no plug-in spec that claims what Bud is posting. So Bud posts insults. In reply, this is what Bud is really promoting - these 'scary pictures': http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/ Pictures of protectors typically located on a pile of desktop papers or buried in dust balls on a rug. |
#190
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 10:54 am, Jitt wrote:
I suppose I phrased the question badly. I wonder why a surge would wander around looking for ground, when its available in the box! If all grounds are same, then connect lightning rods into a motherboard ground. That would be perfect building protection because a lightning rod is grounded? Ground inside a stereo is different from ground inside a TV is different from ground on the computer case is different from ground on a wall receptacle is different from ground inside a cell phone is different from a ground inside a breaker box is different from ground in earth. Most all those grounds are interconnected and are still not the same ground. Electricity is different at both ends of a wire. That 100 amp surge seeking earth from a wall receptacle may leave the wall receptacles at 12,000 volts - again, due to wire impedance. That plug-in protector on Page 42 Figure 8 was so far from earth ground (via AC electric wire) as to be 8000 volts - a destructive path via an adjacent TV to earth. The EE Times article entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" defines why a ground in a box is not a ground to surges. Why electricity at both ends of a wire is always different. Why that difference during a surge is so important that an effective protection makes a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. Only relevant 'ground' is the one that is ground to a surge. That is not an 'inside the box' ground. Typically destructive surges are an electrical connection from a cloud to earthborne charges maybe miles away - the relevant ground. If any part of that connection is via an appliance, then the appliance may be damaged. Surge protection has always been about diverting a connection from cloud to earthborne charges so that current need not pass inside the building. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground so that surges need not enter a building. No earth ground means no effective protection; means a surge creates connections to earth destructively inside a building. Any facility that installs effective protection does earthing connected, very short, via a 'whole house' type protector. Polyphaser makes a protector that has NO earth ground connection. Earthing is so critical that their protector mounts directly ON the earthing electrode - zero feet from earth ground. Distance to earth ground is critical for effective protection. Which ground? Earth ground is not found and not provide in three wire AC wall receptacles. That is a safety ground. |
#191
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 12:08 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote: Where did I say HOW was protected? It was my second week at that station, and the chief engineer took off on a long overdue vacation. If you would learn to read, rather than just do mindless rants you wouldn't look so stupid. At that time the building had a UFER ground, and a three phase protection system at the meter CTs. That didn't prevent the damage, as you claim it should. Lightning created damage. Since Michael Terrell says it had an Ufer ground, that means grounding was properly installed and not corrupted? Therefore the resulting damage proves, "Woe is me. Nothing can protect from lightning."? Nonsense. Damage was created by a surge. A responsible human locates the defect in that protection system. Michael Terrell was defeatist. He 'knew' nothing can earthing lightning without damage. Then Michael posts nonsense about other protectors so he need not admit this fact: MOVs are not used on telephone lines. Why discuss fuses? Fuses obviously are not for surge protection - when one has basic electrical knowledge. Effective protectors (even gas discharge tubes - GDTs) earth direct lightning strikes and remain functional. So why is Michael now discussing GDTs and fuses? Michael has again been caught posting in error. MOVs are not used for telephone line surge protection due to excessive capacitance. This has long been common knowledge among those who post facts - not insults. Nnoted and finally admitted by Michael is a reasons why so little lightning in the UK creates so much damage. Master sockets are not even earthed as the equivlant NID is, routinely, in all North America. Responsible people who suffer surge damage immediately search for the human failure that made damage possible. Search typically begins by looking for defects in the single point earth ground system. Those who promote magic box plug-in protectors would not do this and must assume lightning damage cannot be avoided - a defeatist attitude. |
#192
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 3:08 pm, wrote:
W_ denies MOVs are commonly used in typical electonics or modern appliances too. He had to, because he can't answer the obvious question of how MOVs can be used effectively in these applications, yet they can't work in plug-in protectors and the only way to get any protection is to have a nearby direct earth ground. Faced with the problem of MOVs providing protection in electronics/appliance without an earthground, he simply denies MOVs are used in electronics and appliances. ... Using trader's reasoning, all appliances contain MOVs. Therefore plug-in protectors need not be purchased AND all appliances never suffer surge damage. Conclusions directly from trader's post. Reality: all appliances contain protection using numerous techniques such as galvanic isolation. Protection that means all but a rare and typically destructive surge is made irrelevant. Internal appliance protection is dependent on a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. The typically destructive surge must be earthed to not overwhelm protection inside all appliances. |
#193
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 10:22 am, Eric wrote:
I can attest to vhf/uhf content in lightning strikes. I worked for a communications outfit. We owned and maintained a number of comm sites with towers and antennas. One strike on an antenna destroyed the LDF rf cable all the way to the polyphaser at the bottom of the tower. Eric notes damage only up to the earthed Polyphaser protector. Polyphaser is legendary among professionals who install effective protection. Polyphaser is blunt about what provides protection - why their products are so effective. Polyphaser protectors are earthed. Polyphaser application notes repeatedly discuss what their products must connect to; what provides protection: earth ground: http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx |
#194
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In article
..com, w_tom writes [snip w_'s usual lies and bald statements with no citations or proof to back them up and his boilerplate messianic statement of religious belief] Same technique used by Rush Limbaugh to prove Saddam had WMDs. ROTFL!! You've really lost it this time, w_****. I hereby invoke Godwin's law. -- (\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista! (='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html (")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf |
#195
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 7, 12:36*am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article .com, w_tom writes [snip w_'s usual lies and bald statements with no citations or proof to back them up and his boilerplate messianic statement of religious belief] Same technique used by Rush Limbaugh to prove Saddam had WMDs. ROTFL!! *You've really lost it this time, w_****. * I hereby invoke Godwin's law. And as usual, W_'s statement taken at face value is wrong and/or misleading. A simple check of history shows Saddam did in fact have WMDs for years, because they were used in war and against his own people. The UN weapons inspectors had spent a decade of hide and seek locating and destroying most of them. Just prior to the start of the Iraq war, not only did US intelligence believe he still had some of them and was trying to reconstruct the weapons programs, but so did British, Israeli and Russian intelligence. -- (\__/) * Bunny says NO to Windows Vista! (='.'=) *http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html (")_(") *http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf |
#196
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote:
What will provide sufficient earthing? A large series air-core copper toroid (eg 1' diam x 2' long with a 3" wire spacing) followed by a small spark gap to a poor ground. Nick |
#197
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 2:42*am, w_tom wrote:
* *This will address some of your questions only in summary. *Details are provided in other posts. * First, much of this stuff was learned by earliest 20th century hams. *They would disconnect their antenna, put the lead inside a mason jar, and still suffer radio damage. Even mason jars could not stop or block lightning. I'd love to see a reference for this. In that time frame, lightning was already fairly well understood. I find it hard to believe any ham would try to use a mason jar in this way. Sounds more like some urban legend to me. But then the antenna was earthed, then damage stopped. *It's just like Franklin's lightning rod (air terminal). Protection has always been about diverting "it to ground, where it can do no harm". *Disconnecting did not provide sufficient protection. That wire had to be earthed. * Protection for the TV, computer, and all other appliances is same. Computers contain some of the most robust protection. *Computer grade UPSes can output electricity so dirty (when in battery backup mode) as to even harm some small electric motors. *But computers are so robust as to make even that 'dirty' electricity irrelevant. *Do not assume computers have less internal protection. *Intel ATX standards require computers to be more robust than what is standard for other appliances. And guess what component is used as part of that robust protection? MOVs, which W_ denies are used in electronics/appliances. Once again, I'll ask the same question W_ refuses to answer. How is it that MOVs or any other component can offer protection when used in a PC power supply, but are useless in a plug-in surge protector? According to W_, surge protection is impossible unless there is a direct and short connection to earth ground. Does the PC power supply come with a built-in earth ground? |
#198
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
wrote:
wrote: | I wonder if "ring mains" (an extra wire from the last outlet to make | a loop back to the fusebox) are legal in the US. Seems like a nice way | to improve voltage regulation with a little extra wire, and if the ring | wire only breaks in one place, all the outlets keep working. It is not legal in the US. It is also considered technically unsafe. Lots of things are "technically unsafe" :-) Safety is often used as excuse for people-control... The safest case would be wiring both ends of the ring into the same breaker rated for the current capacity of the wire as if used in a regular branch circuit. Sounds good to me. ... If the wire became loose at one point in the ring, it would still be a potential hot spot Maybe not too hot, if the rest of the wire is intact. ... a neutral would have to be wired in from both ends of the ring, and each be wired in a separate hole (not doubled up) in the neutral bus bar. The "separate hole problem" has lots of solutions. ... The issue of voltage stability is addressed by keeping branch circuits short. It is my understanding that UK ring circuits tend to be longer and run all around the portion of a house (often an entire floor). Sounds more cost-effective to me. Why don't more people use large PEX pipe "ring mains" with Ts, vs home runs with tiny pipe and expensive manifolds? Nick |
#199
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 9:52*pm, w_tom wrote:
On May 6, 3:08 pm, wrote: W_ *denies MOVs are commonly used in typical electonics or modern appliances too. * He had to, because he can't answer the obvious question of how MOVs can be used effectively in these applications, yet they can't work in plug-in protectors and the only way to get any protection is to have a nearby direct earth ground. * Faced with the problem of MOVs providing protection in electronics/appliance without an earthground, he simply denies MOVs are used in electronics and appliances. *... * Using trader's reasoning, all appliances contain MOVs. *Therefore plug-in protectors need not be purchased AND all appliances never suffer surge damage. Conclusions directly from trader's post. LOL. You're a real riot. YOU are the one that in previous and similar long threads has stated that manufacturers of appliances and electronic equipment put surge protection in them and that it works, and used that as an argument as to why a plug-in surge protector is useless. I never stated that all appliances contain MOVs. I only stated that they frequently or commonly do. You, on the other hand, denied that MOVs are used in that kind of application. At which point, I provided you references to a couple of articles in Appliance Magazine that discuss how MOV are in fact commonly used in those applications: A poster just told you his microwave has them. Another told you the phone system sitting in front of him has them. So, once again, stop lying about what I stated and answer the simple question: How is it that MOVs can work as surge protection inside the appliance, but not in a plug-in surge protector? Where is that essential direct earth ground? Does that microwave come with a built-in earth ground? If not, then just like the plug-in surge protector, there is no direct earth ground, so how can the MOV be helping protect the microwave? And it would help if you just answer that question, not start with a long rant. * Reality: all appliances contain protection using numerous techniques such as galvanic isolation. *Protection that means all but a rare and typically destructive surge is made irrelevant. *Internal appliance protection is dependent on a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. *The typically destructive surge must be earthed to not overwhelm protection inside all appliances. |
#200
Posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.home.repair,alt.engineering.electrical,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,sci.electronics.basics
|
|||
|
|||
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 6, 3:29*am, wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Don Kelly wrote: | Now - is this all germane to household protection? You say not and I agree | with you- because household equipment can ride through - at worst- doubling | of the clamped voltage for a very short time even though the clamped voltage | is relatively small compared to the peak of the incoming surge. -- What if the surge is an extreme case (e.g. direct strike very near) and it is arriving at protection devices in common mode (same polarity on all three wires). *Bud's assertion _seems_ to be that no surge could ever be of the type with substantial energy at high frequencies. *My belief is that they can, and will at times. *Lightning strokes have that energy, or else you would not receive them on UHF. *If the stroke is strong _and_ close (e.g.. less line inductance between the point of strike and where it is being considered), then more of that UHF energy will arrive. I have seen damage patterns in electronics that strongly suggests that there were specific paths involved based on minor levels of reactance in the circuit. A resistor would be melted along one path, but not so along another which had a small inductor (3 turns in air) in the way. *And this device (a VCR) was on a surge protector along with a TV that was unharmed. If Bud is just arguing about the _typical_ (median?) surge level, then maybe we are arguing apples and oranges. *I certainly don't intent to protect against 50% of surges. *My target is better than 99%. *I want to feel comfortable sleeping through a severe thunderstorm while my computers and media center remain plugged in. I do agree that things can survive at the clamping voltage. *But there has to be a clamping situation. *It's too easy for a surge to come in as a common mode surge where the voltage difference across the MOVs would be (nearly) zero. Then all we have is a propogating wavefront. *And if it is strong and/or close then we have very fast rise times. *And it passes by the MOVs "laterally". There's probably a big difference of opinion about just how much protection is worth it. *But one thing I do see in at least part of this thread is that Bud focuses on quoting things other people say, and does very little to express things in his own words. *That suggests he reads but does not fully understand. And that means I can't ask questions of what is said in the thread. *Since Bud can't (or won't) defend what he's saying in his own words based on his own knowledge, it's not really a two way street. *His "experts" are not involved in the debate; they can neither defend their position nor be questioned about it to get more details. I find Bud's use of actual references interesting and think they add to his credibility. Trying to suggest that someone using references such as the IEEE to support their position detracts from their credibility is preposterous. And trying to impugn him in this fashion only detracts from your credibility. It also has brought some other comments from people who are either anti-social insulting types, or those that just don't understand what is said (apparently having never dealt with transmission line propogation), or both. *But at least I know who not to trust any technical opinions from when I have question to ask about things I want to learn more about. -- |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) | |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Checking House Ground/Lightning protection | Home Repair | |||
Supply 2 Pole,3 Pole Gas Tube Surge Arresters,Gas Discharge Tube,(Ceramic Surge Arresters | UK diy | |||
Difference between whole-house surge supressor and secondary surge arrestor | Home Repair | |||
Lightning Arrestor and Whole House Surge Protector Question | Home Repair |