I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. *They don't rate
their ability to function as "surge protectors".


UL evaluates surge suppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.
Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.

Whatever surge suppression protection you're looking for, make sure
the surge suppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient Voltage Surge
Suppressors.

http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/toc...=s&fn=1449.toc

On May 6, 10:33*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
w_tom wrote:

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.

* *That's it, _wacko_. *Use more misdirection. *It is YOU who claims
that broadcast facilities sustain no damage from lightning strikes.

* 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.

* *More _wacko_ lies, as expected.

* 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?

* If you could read and comprehend you would know. *Sadly, you are too
ignorant to understand what you read.

*Michael has again
been caught posting in error. *MOVs are not used for telephone line
surge protection due to excessive capacitance.

* *Liar. *You keep telling this lie, even though I posted links to two
telephone cards using them, as well as the datasheets form one of many
OEMs who make MOVs for Telecom service. *The stated capacitance is 480
pF *Tell us how that affects the bandwidth, when the line to the
building has a higher capacitance.

*This has long been
common knowledge among those who post facts - not insults.

* *gee, stop posting lies and insults, and learn the truth.

*Nnoted and
finally admitted by Michael is a reasons why so little lightning in
the UK creates so much damage.

* *Another blatant lie. I never mentioned anything to do with protection
in the UK, _wacko_.

*Master sockets are not even earthed as
the equivlant NID is, routinely, in all North America.

* *You didn't even look at that Epcos link, did you? *You can't admit
that you are the biggest idiot and liar on USENET. *It doesn't really
matter, everyone sees through your pathetic attempts to distort the
truth. When that doesn't work, you fall back on lies and omissions to
smear anyone you don't agree with.

* Responsible people who suffer surge damage immediately search for
the human failure that made damage possible.

* *I did look. *What I found was large chunks of concrete blown away,
and pieces of burnt rebar from a direct strike.

*Search typically begins
by looking for defects in the single point earth ground system.

* *Now UFER is single point in a 10,000 Sq. Ft building?

*Those
who promote magic box plug-in protectors would not do this and must
assume lightning damage cannot be avoided - a defeatist attitude.

* *You are the one with an attitude. *Very little can be done to protect
from a direct strike. Some towers have had entire sections vaporized
from multiple strikes during a single storm, yet you continue to lie, by
stating it can't happen. No where did I claim that plug-in protection
was used. *This is another of your lies. *You ignored the fact that I
had never even seen most of the building, because I was just hired. I
was in the accounting office, right by the side door, and parking lot
where I filled out the application.

* *Here is the part you snipped, because you can't tell your ignorant
lies, and leave it in:
__________________________________________________ _________________________*_

* *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.
__________________________________________________ _________________________*_

--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


LOL Haven't you seen W_ in action before? This is one of his
standard rants repeated many times. According to W_ any damage from
lightning or surges MUST be do to HUMAN failure.

wrote:
I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. They don't rate
their ability to function as "surge protectors".


UL evaluates surge suppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.
Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.

How can one find this rating for a particular device?

Whatever surge suppression protection you're looking for, make sure
the surge suppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient Voltage Surge
Suppressors.

http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html

"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, a surge may have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, the surge suppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/toc...=s&fn=1449.toc

Thanks for the reference.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

VWWall wrote:
see original post

http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html

"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, a surge may have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, the surge suppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

This should read "Joules". See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varistor

for some useful information.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

wrote:

LOL Haven't you seen W_ in action before? This is one of his
standard rants repeated many times. According to W_ any damage from
lightning or surges MUST be do to HUMAN failure.



Yes, I've seen that, and more. That's why I refute his crap. If he
isn't refuted, people who don't know any better will believe him.


--
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 in message
...
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.


What's becoming more relevant here every day is your mental illness. . . . .
along with your terrible OCD disadvantage, constantly referring to yourself
in the third-person is pointing to a flourishing
Depersonalization/Dissociative Identity Disorder. You can look it up.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
wrote:
LOL Haven't you seen W_ in action before? This is one of his
standard rants repeated many times. According to W_ any damage from
lightning or surges MUST be do to HUMAN failure.



Yes, I've seen that, and more. That's why I refute his crap. If he
isn't refuted, people who don't know any better will believe him.

Just ask him about using a 3 1/2 digit VOM to check out those lousy ATX
power supplies thet everyone is fostering on us. ;-)

--
Virg Wall

wrote:

Or his statements about how lightning strikes exactly once every 8
years. He's got a whole repertoire of these beauties. I no longer see
his posts unless they are quoted in someone else's replies, as I
filter all posts in alt.home.repair that come from googlegroups. I
really don't miss him, as he just endlessly repeats the same garbage
that he's been spewing for a decade on usenet. He's a complete kook.


Not quite complete. He's still breathing.


--
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

VWWall wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
wrote:
LOL Haven't you seen W_ in action before? This is one of his
standard rants repeated many times. According to W_ any damage from
lightning or surges MUST be do to HUMAN failure.



Yes, I've seen that, and more. That's why I refute his crap. If he
isn't refuted, people who don't know any better will believe him.

Just ask him about using a 3 1/2 digit VOM to check out those lousy ATX
power supplies thet everyone is fostering on us. ;-)


He's no better at choosing a meter than he is at thinking.


--
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

On May 7, 2:37*pm, VWWall wrote:
wrote:
I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. *They don't rate
their ability to function as "surgeprotectors".

UL evaluatessurgesuppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.
Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.

How can one find this rating for a particular device?

Look for ul1449 330v or 400 for example, or surge voltage rating SVR
330v or Clamping Category 330v


Whateversurgesuppression protection you're looking for, make sure
thesurgesuppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient VoltageSurge
Suppressors.

http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html

"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, asurgemay have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, thesurgesuppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

MOV’s and surge protectors are like tires on your car, the more you
use them the shorter useful life, mistreat them, the shorter the
useful life, too small or light weight the shorter the useful life.
Ul 1449 certification take care of the too small or light weight.
Proper selection for problem locations is the key to protection.

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! *They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

Don’t pay attention to joules on surge protectors, no standard to
measure, a better and recommended rating is “Peak Surge Current” the
higher the better.

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/toc...=s&fn=1449.toc

Thanks for the reference.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:21:16 +0300, Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
Ï "Tantalust" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
. ..
"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 saw one in one of the "Popular this-n-that" mags, that used a piece of
copper pipe, with a hose fitting on the end. You point the pipe at the
ground, turn on the hose, and the water digs its hole for it. Then, you
can take the hose fitting off, cap the pipe, and have a pretty decent
ground stake.

Maybe it was one of the ham mags.

Cheers!
Rich

On May 7, 7:27 am, wrote:
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.

Read Duelfer's report. Learn facts before posting. When David
Kay's report said WMDs did not exist, then extremists had Kay's report
withheld hoping that Charles Duelfer’s report would say otherwise.
Instead, Duelfer’s report said what Kay's report said - and more.
Those WMDs did not exist.

trader should first learn before knowing. trader's constant
bickering is directly traceable to knowledge with first learning
facts. Another indication of that, his problem, are posts full of
insults rather than technical facts. When will trader post a technical
facts or citation? trader even denies what was well documented about
Saddam's WMDs. No wonder he also posts insults that only Rush
Limbaugh would be proud of.

Meanwhile, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground
which is why one 'whole house' protector is *routine* for effective
household surge protection. Which is why responsible homeowners also
inspect their primary surge protection:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
trader also denies this despite a long list of industry professionals
that trader never bothered to learn from.

Another professional standard contradicts naysayers such as trader.
IEEE Green Book (IEEE Std 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning
Protection Grounding':
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

Significantly effective is only one 'whole house' protector.
Protector for about $1 per protected appliance. How much for the
ineffective plug-in protector? $25 or $150 per protected
appliance. Where does that plug-in protector even claim to protect
from typically destructive surges? No plug-in manufacturer
specification exists. It does not even claim to protect from the
typically destructive sruge. IEEE is quite blunt about effective
protection from a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Unlike
trader, I even provide numbers.

trader never read industry standards. Unnecessary. trader
automatically knows without first learning.

On May 7, 2:37 pm, VWWall wrote:
How can one find this rating for a particular device?

UL makes no effort to measure a protector's protective ability. In
fact, protectors can completely fail during a UL certification test
and still obtain UL approval. It failed without emitting sparks or
flame; therefore UL approved.

Approval may be obtained by undersizing MOV's thermal fuses so that
a protector will disconnect MOVs faster during a surge; leave the
appliance to fend for itself. Undersized surge protector simply
disconnects faster to obtain UL1449 approval. How might it get that
approval? Provide even less protection so as to not spit flame.

Also required for UL approval is total number of joules. That says
nothing about how many joules actually participate in protection.
Typically, plug-in protectors use as little as 1/3rd and never more
than 2/3rd of its joules for protection. If a protector is also for
cable, telephone, network, etc, then that protector may use even less
joules during protection.

A 'whole house' protector uses all joules during all types of
surges. What happens when more joules actually participate in
protection? Well, doubling the numbers of 'used' joules typically
increases a protector’s life expectancy by a factor of eight. As
joules increase, the life expectancy of the protector increases
exponentially. As joules increase, more energy gets dissipated in
earth and less energy gets dissipated inside the protector. Increase
joules to absorb less energy and to exponentially increase protector's
life expectancy.

Minimal 'whole house' protector for a home is 1000 joules and 50,000
amp surges. In locations where surges occur more frequently, a larger
joule protector is installed. Increased joules means increases
protector life expectancy.

How effective are 'whole house' protectors? Well, a friend suffered
when the 33,000+ volt transmission line fell upon his 4000 volt
distribution line. Literally everyone powered from that B phase had
electric meters explode up to 30 feet from their pans. Many had
damage to plug-in protectors and to powered off appliances plugged
into those protectors. But my friend suffered no damage, except to a
meter that exploded off his building. He had a properly earthed
'whole house' protector. A protector is not rated to provide that
protection. But properly installed protectors with sufficient joules
will provide more protection than rated.

Which protectors actually provide better protection? Products from
a list of responsible manufacturers such as Intermatic, Square D,
Siemens, Polyphaser, GE, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, and Leviton.
Specifically not on that list are APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster
Cable.

On May 7, 8:07 am, wrote:
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?

Again trader reads only what he wants to see. Surge protection
without that short connection to earth ground is *ineffective*.
trader, who understands propaganda in the Rush Limbaugh tradition,
changes the message - uses the word 'impossible'. Misrepresenting
reality is trader.

PC power supply has no built-in earth ground. How do others know?
They learned before knowing. For example, they read both front page
EE Times articles entitled “Protecting Electrical Devices from
Lightning Transients". trader did not. Those electrical concepts
were too complex. trader knows rather than first learn technology.

Had trader learned facts before posting, he would have read what
IEEE Standards also said (and is posted elsewhere). Defined by the
IEEE is effective protection - with numbers:
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

What do 'whole house' protectors use? Enough MOVs so that protector
is sufficiently sized. So that direct lightning strikes does not
destroy the protector.

What do MOVs need to provide effective connection? That short (ie '
less than 10 foot') connection to earth.

What provides surge protection? Earth ground - where surge energy
is harmlessly dissipated.

What does the effective MOV do? Connects to earth so that surge
energy gets dissipated harmlessly rather than destructively inside the
building.

What must those MOVs inside appliances do (and why did Apple stop
using them after Apple II)? Those MOVs must somehow stop or absorb a
surge that even three miles of sky could not stop. So few joules will
somehow absorb all that energy. Such little devices will block what a
sky could not?

What happens when MOVs are too close to appliances and too far from
earth ground? Page 42 Figure 8 from another IEEE citation - surge
earthed 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV.

Provides were numerous professional citations that say this. Where
does trader even post technical numbers? He does not. trader is like
most who recommend plug-in protectors. They need not first learn
facts. They know. Their proof is by using insults – just like Rush
Limbaugh.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

w_tom wrote:

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.


And you are only as lucid as your drugs allow.


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In article , bud--
writes

Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?

It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
be used simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

My previous house still had its telephone earth rod and earth wire,
though it had not been connected to the phone line for many years.

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

w_tom wrote:

Also required for UL approval is total number of joules. That says
nothing about how many joules actually participate in protection.
Typically, plug-in protectors use as little as 1/3rd and never more
than 2/3rd of its joules for protection.

How does a protector decide how many of its joules to use? :-)

Nick

w_tom wrote:

... Surge protection without that short connection to earth ground
is *ineffective*.

Wrong, wrong, wrong (say it 3 times and it's true :-)

Nick, ex-K3VZW, BSEE, MSEE, Senior Member, IEEE

On May 7, 2:37 pm, VWWall wrote:
wrote:
I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. They don't rate
their ability to function as "surgeprotectors".
UL evaluatessurgesuppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.
Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.
How can one find this rating for a particular device?

Look for ul1449 330v or 400 for example, or surge voltage rating SVR
330v or Clamping Category 330v

Whateversurgesuppression protection you're looking for, make sure
thesurgesuppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient VoltageSurge
Suppressors.
http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html
"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, asurgemay have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, thesurgesuppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

MOV’s and surge protectors are like tires on your car, the more you
use them the shorter useful life, mistreat them, the shorter the
useful life, too small or light weight the shorter the useful life.
Ul 1449 certification take care of the too small or light weight.
Proper selection for problem locations is the key to protection.

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

Don’t pay attention to joules on surge protectors, no standard to
measure, a better and recommended rating is “Peak Surge Current” the
higher the better.

wrote:
On May 7, 2:37 pm, VWWall wrote:
wrote:
I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. They don't rate
their ability to function as "surgeprotectors".
UL evaluatessurgesuppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.


Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.

That is a quote from UL. Contrast that with Martzloff:
"The fact of the matter is that nowadays, most electronic appliances
have an inherent immunity level of at least 600 V to 800 V, so that the
clamping voltages of 330 V widely offered by TVSS [surge suppressor]
manufacturers are really not necessary. Objective assessment of the
situation leads to the conclusion that the 330 V clamping level,
promoted by a few manufacturers, was encouraged by the promulgation of
UL Std 1449, showing that voltage as the lowest in a series of possible
clamping voltages for 120 V circuits. Thus was created the downward
auction of 'lower is better' notwithstanding the objections raised by
several researchers and well-informed manufacturers. One of the
consequences of this downward auction can be premature ageing of TVSS
that are called upon to carry surge currents as the result of relatively
low transient voltages that would not put equipment in jeopardy."

How can one find this rating for a particular device?

Look for ul1449 330v or 400 for example, or surge voltage rating SVR
330v or Clamping Category 330v

I believe it is required by UL to be on the package or literature.


Whateversurgesuppression protection you're looking for, make sure
thesurgesuppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient VoltageSurge
Suppressors.
http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html
"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, asurgemay have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, thesurgesuppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

MOV’s and surge protectors are like tires on your car, the more you
use them the shorter useful life, mistreat them, the shorter the
useful life, too small or light weight the shorter the useful life.
Ul 1449 certification take care of the too small or light weight.
Proper selection for problem locations is the key to protection.

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

Don’t pay attention to joules on surge protectors, no standard to
measure, a better and recommended rating is “Peak Surge Current” the
higher the better.

I would like to know the Joule ratings. The problem, as you say, is
there is no standard way to measure the energy rating and some
manufacturers apparently use questionable ratings. That has led some
other reputable manufacturers, like SquareD, to not include Joule ratings.

Peak surge current is directly related to the energy rating. w_'s
recommended 50,000A surge current rating is way beyond what you will get
at a service panel, but it represents a high energy rating which means
long life.

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
On May 7, 2:37 pm, VWWall wrote:
How can one find this rating for a particular device?

UL makes no effort to measure a protector's protective ability.

Cuttler Hammer says you are wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/63594d


Approval may be obtained by undersizing MOV's thermal fuses so that
a protector will disconnect MOVs faster during a surge; leave the
appliance to fend for itself.

Of course that applies to service panel and plug-in suppressors. But CH
says a suppressor has to have tested functionality (above).

w_ just buys cheap Chinese knock offs, so his suppressors fail regularly.


Also required for UL approval is total number of joules.

Provide a cite. Why does your favored manufacturer SquareD not provide
Joule ratings?


A 'whole house' protector uses all joules during all types of
surges.

Depends on the surge.


How effective are 'whole house' protectors? Well, a friend suffered
when the 33,000+ volt transmission line fell upon his 4000 volt
distribution line. Literally everyone powered from that B phase had
electric meters explode up to 30 feet from their pans. Many had
damage to plug-in protectors and to powered off appliances plugged
into those protectors. But my friend suffered no damage, except to a
meter that exploded off his building. He had a properly earthed
'whole house' protector. A protector is not rated to provide that
protection. But properly installed protectors with sufficient joules
will provide more protection than rated.

Neither service panel or plug-in suppressors will survive extended
overvoltage. It rapidly kills MOVs. w_ is using anecdotal evidence
(with no cite) to suggest service panel suppressors protect from crossed
power lines. More lunacy.


Which protectors actually provide better protection? Products from
a list of responsible manufacturers such as Intermatic, Square D,
Siemens, Polyphaser, GE, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, and Leviton.

Being responsible, they all make plug-in suppressors except SquareD.
SquareD, for the ‘best’ service panel suppressor, says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."


Still missing - a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still missing – answers to embarrassing 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 accurate information read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

VWWall wrote:
bud-- wrote:
VWWall wrote:
wrote:

"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.

Using a MOV to protect against loss of neutral (in the article) is
rather futile. Sustained overvoltage will rapidly kill them. Although
if the protected load was across the MOV and a fuse was ahead of both
protection may work. Would be interesting why the MOV was ahead of the
switch.

Good question. In the MW oven case, the switch was a relay controlled
by the timer circuit. It was probably easier to locate the MOV at the
line input.

I have seen cases with a "blown" MOV and the circuit protector tripped.
The MOV, if it tripped the protector, may have saved the following
circuits from the over-voltage condition for a longer period of time. I
haven't tried to calculate the conditions under which this would work.

Normal MOV failure is by high current and overheating (as below). A fuse
may provide protection. Plug-in suppressors likely use the heat as part
of the disconnect. For overvoltage, the disconnect would have to survive
the higher voltage.

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.

As you know, MOVs lose their capacity each time a "spike" causes them to
conduct. This reduces the remaining capability to handle "surges".

You may already know all of this -

MOVs are damaged by heat from energy dissipated in their clamping
action. The defined end of life of a MOV is when the voltage that
produces a 1mA current decreases 10%. At that point the MOV is still
clamping the voltage across it. Further dissipation continues to lower
the voltage until the MOV conducts at ‘normal’ voltages and goes into
thermal runaway. For surge suppressors, UL required protection
disconnects the MOV when it overheats. It should still be clamping at
that point.

The energy (Joule) rating is for a single event. If the individual hits
are far below the rating, the cumulative energy rating is far above the
single event rating. High ratings give longer life than you might expect.

Service panel and plug-in suppressors do not protect by absorbing
energy. But they absorb energy in the process of protecting.

I would only buy one with fairly high ratings (which are readily
available).

True, but some are marketed as "surge protected" with minimal capacity.
I've replaced the MOVs in several cheap multiple socket strips with
higher rated MOVs from Radio Shack.

UL, as far as I know, requires MOVs to be L-N, L-G, N-G. I thought
that was the standard since the start, which w_ said was 1985.

I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. They don't rate
their ability to function as "surge protectors".

A Cuttler-Hammer tech note:
http://tinyurl.com/63594d
has some information on UL tests. Suppressors have to remain functional
through an initial set of surges (20 surges - 6kv, 3kA). They can fail
safely after that. (This sounds more like the service panel suppressor
test.)

--
bud--

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , bud--
writes

Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?

It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
be used simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

My previous house still had its telephone earth rod and earth wire,
though it had not been connected to the phone line for many years.


I am pretty sure we had a party line long ago when I was a kid.
Wikipedia's reference to "20th century telephone systems" makes me feel
even older.
One side of the ringer is all that was connected to earth.

Not clamping phone wires to earth is a major surge suppression flaw. It
allows high voltage from phone to power wires (like at a modem), and
increases the stress on a multiport plug-in suppressor. A service panel
suppressor doesn't help the voltage difference at all.

Surprising since the UK seems to be very good on electrical protection
in general.

--
bud--

On May 8, 10:52*am, bud-- wrote:


I would like to know the Joule ratings. The problem, as you say, is
there is no standard way to measure the energy rating and some
manufacturers apparently use questionable ratings. That has led some
other reputable manufacturers, like SquareD, to not include Joule ratings.

Here is a couple of nice article for evaluating SPD’s.

Is the Joule rating of an SPD important?
While conceptually an surge protection device (SPD) with a larger
energy rating will be better, comparing SPD energy (Joule) ratings can
be misleading. More reputable manufactures no longer provide energy
ratings. The energy rating is the sum of surge current, surge
duration, and SPD clamping voltage.
In comparing two products, the lower rated device would be better if
this was as a result of a lower clamping voltage, while the large
energy device would be preferable if this was as a result of a larger
surge current being used. There is no clear standard for SPD energy
measurement, and manufacturers have been known to use long tail pulses
to provide larger results.
Additionally confusing this issue is the possibility that the rating
is just the energy absorbed, diverted, or the sum of both. NEMA LS 1
by specific omission does not recommend the comparison of SPD’s energy
ratings. Comparison of single shot surge ratings and let-through
voltages is considered sufficient.
http://www.nemasurge.com/help.html

http://ecmweb.com/mag/electric_compa...d_performance/
http://www.control-concepts.com/pdfs/01_005.pdf
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf 2.5.1 Joule
Rating

bud-- wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , bud--
writes

Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?

It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
be used simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

My previous house still had its telephone earth rod and earth wire,
though it had not been connected to the phone line for many years.


I am pretty sure we had a party line long ago when I was a kid.
Wikipedia's reference to "20th century telephone systems" makes me feel
even older.
One side of the ringer is all that was connected to earth.

Not clamping phone wires to earth is a major surge suppression flaw. It
allows high voltage from phone to power wires (like at a modem), and
increases the stress on a multiport plug-in suppressor. A service panel
suppressor doesn't help the voltage difference at all.

Surprising since the UK seems to be very good on electrical protection
in general.

I had a party line as a 10 year old. I used to screw with the other
party if I heard them when I picked up the phone.. strange noises, etc.
Of course I got caught, corporal punishment, etc.
I think they used to ring between the red green for one party, yellow
green for the other party, black green, etc.
Eric

In article ,
says...
bud-- wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , bud--
writes

Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?

It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
be used simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

My previous house still had its telephone earth rod and earth wire,
though it had not been connected to the phone line for many years.


I am pretty sure we had a party line long ago when I was a kid.
Wikipedia's reference to "20th century telephone systems" makes me feel
even older.
One side of the ringer is all that was connected to earth.

Not clamping phone wires to earth is a major surge suppression flaw. It
allows high voltage from phone to power wires (like at a modem), and
increases the stress on a multiport plug-in suppressor. A service panel
suppressor doesn't help the voltage difference at all.

Surprising since the UK seems to be very good on electrical protection
in general.

I had a party line as a 10 year old. I used to screw with the other
party if I heard them when I picked up the phone.. strange noises, etc.
Of course I got caught, corporal punishment, etc.

We had a party line when I was very young. ...until about '56, or
so. Ma Bell had gotten rid of them in the area by '59.

I think they used to ring between the red green for one party, yellow
green for the other party, black green, etc.

No, that would defeat the purpose of the party line. The ringers
either had "distinctive ring" (once for Mabel, twice for Maude) or
were frequency tuned.

--
Keith

On May 8, 1:07 pm, wrote:
Is the Joule rating of an SPD important?
While conceptually an surge protection device (SPD) with a larger
energy rating will be better, comparing SPD energy (Joule) ratings can
be misleading. More reputable manufactures no longer provide energy
ratings. The energy rating is the sum of surge current, surge
duration, and SPD clamping voltage.
In comparing two products, the lower rated device would be better if
this was as a result of a lower clamping voltage, while the large
energy device would be preferable if this was as a result of a larger
surge current being used. There is no clear standard for SPD energy
measurement, and manufacturers have been known to use long tail pulses
to provide larger results.

MOV manufacturers do not play the 'joules' games that some plug-in
protector manufacturers play. Plug-in protector typically uses as
little or less than 1/3rd and never more than 2/3rds of rated joules
during protection. During some surges, a plug-in protector may use 0%
of its joules because the massive surge voltage is same on all wires -
as surge seeks earth ground destructively via electronics. No voltage
between wires means the protector never sees any of the destructive
surge - does nothing for protection. So how many joules does it
really use?

An effective 'whole house' protector uses 100% of its joules for all
types of surges which is why 'whole house' protectors can routinely
earth direct lightning strikes without damage - why these protectors
suvive and absorb less energy due to an exponentially longer life
expectancy.

Joules that actually get used during each surge provide a ballpark
measurement for a protector's life expectancy. Further numbers are in
an above reply to VWWall on 7 May 2008.

SVR, typically 330 or 400 volts, printed on the box, required by the
UL, and more often called "let-through voltage". A vague number so
that consumers can make ball park comparisons. No useful for making
engineering decisions.

A plug-in protector rated at 330 volts will start conducting at
maybe 200 volts. When a larger surge occurs, it conducts at 900
volts. Protector rated at 330 volts conducts between 200 and 900
volts. What happens when conducting at or above 900 volts? MOV self
destructs - vaporizes. Also called those 'scary pictures' - what every
MOV manufacturers defines as unacceptable operation.

So what does that SVR (threshold or let-through) voltage really
measure?

Discussed is a 70 SVR difference. Irrelevant since the difference
between ineffective and proper earthing is thousands of volts. If not
properly earthed, then even a tiny 100 amp surge puts that protector
at something approaching 12,000 volts. 70 volts or even 330 volts is
completely irrelevant.

Properly routed ground wire (no sharp bends, etc) can make
thousands of volts difference as described by so many professional
citations. What defines protection? Quality of and connection to
earth ground can make thousands of volts difference.

Page 42 Figure 8 from Bud's IEEE citation. Will a 330 or 400 volt
protector make any difference? Of course not. With either protector,
that surge is still 8000 volts destructively finding earth ground
through an adjacent TV. How to eliminate up to 12,000 volts?
Shorten the 50 feet AC electric wire between protector and earth
ground to zero feet.

Bud posts that electronics contain internal protection of 600 or 800
volts. Intel ATX specs demand that internal protection exceed 1000
volts. Just another reason why 330 or 400 let-through volts is
irrelevant. Relevant is 900 volts during a typically destructive
surge on a 330 or 400 volt protector.

"My surge protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".
Reality. A protector was so grossly undersized that voltage exceeded
900 volts. MOV did what no MOV must do - vaporize. What protected
that computer? Computer's internal protection protected the
computer. But a naive computer assembler *knows* the protector
provided protection. A myth promoted by grossly undersizing plug-in
protectors. To be effective, a protector must earth a direct
lightning strike and remain functional.

Why argue over which jelly bean is prettier when the room will be
engulfed by a flood. 70 volts difference in SVR is trivial when
improper earthing can mean another 8000 or 12,000 volts during the
typically destructive type of surge.

On May 8, 12:11 pm, bud-- wrote:
UL makes no effort to measure a protector's protective ability.
Cuttler Hammer says you are wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/63594d

Again Bud misrepresents what professional say. Cutler-Hammer says:
2. Surge Test. Let through voltage tested at lower current
than 1st edition. 10 kA (IEEE Cat C3) used for the first
time, however, it was used only to see if products fail
safely.

Only tests a product for a safe failure – does not threaten human
life. Does not measure the performance of protection. Same citation
further states:
2. UL does not verify that the TVSS device will achieve
the manufacturer's published surge current ratings.

Of course not. That would be measuring a protector's protection
abilities. UL does not measure protection - in direct contradiction
to what Bud posts. A protector can completely fail during UL1449
testing and still be approved. UL only cares that is completely fails
– provides no effective protection – without threatening human life.

UL does determine functionality. Otherwise an empty box would be
submitted by Bud’s peers as a surge protector and get UL1449
approval. A protector must demonstrate some protector function. But
UL makes no effort to measure abilities of that protector. UL only
tests that it functions like a protector and does not harm humans.
Bud must deny those which is why his post again lies about what Cutler-
Hammer, IEEE, NIST, and so many others say.

Meanwhile, Bud repeatedly claims that protectors create fires
because UL1449 was created in 1998. UL1449 was approved in 1987 as
Cutler-Hammer also says. Again, Cutler-Hammer disagrees with what
Bud posts. Numerous plug-in protectors after 1998 with UL approval
still create a fire risk – the 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
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

Finally, Bud claims a plug-in protector protects from a surge
that typically destroy appliances. 400 times Bud has been asked to
provide those specs. He refuses because no plug-in manufacturer will
claims what Bud posts. Bud lies about his own IEEE, NIST and Cutler-
Hammer citations. Bud even claims that UL measures a protector's
protection abilities. UL does not. UL addresses threats to human
safety. Protector can completely fail during UL testing and still be
approved as long as the protector does not spit flame during that
failure.

Bud provides not one manufacture spec that claims protection. Bud
cannot provide what does not exist. No wonder Bud will also post
insults He cannot dispute facts even from his IEEE, NIST, and Cutler-
Hammer citations. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. UL makes no effort to rate protection for each protector.

In article , bud--
writes

Not clamping phone wires to earth is a major surge suppression flaw.

It's simply not necessary in towns and cities in the UK. Occurrences of
damage caused by surges on phone lines are practically unheard of.
There are reports of damage caused by direct or nearly lightning
strikes, but of course nothing is going to protect against that.

Houses in villages and remote locations would probably benefit most from
additional protection. You can be sure that critical installations
(hospitals, data centres, etc.) will install additional protection.

British Telecom fit NTE (network termination equipment), also known as a
master socket, which does have surge arrestors built in, but they don't
clamp to earth, they're just across the line:

http://www.buzzhost.co.uk/nte5.php

has a circuit diagram of the NTE, and an interesting photo of damage
caused by a direct lightning strike further down the page (which, of
course, none of w_'s equipment would have prevented.)

An additional factor is that adding further surge protection devices can
affect the line characteristics, causing ADSL sync speeds to drop.

A service panel
suppressor doesn't help the voltage difference at all.

Obviously.

Surprising since the UK seems to be very good on electrical protection
in general.

As I said in an earlier post, a calm, intelligent assessment (not w_'s
level of hand-waving, gibbering hysteria) of each situation is needed
before deciding on the level of protection required.

It's clear that it's simply not needed for most UK domestic phone lines;
this will have been borne out by years and years of experience, looking
at the number of insurance claims, etc. I should think BT's attitude is
that if the customer wishes to install additional protection after the
demarc (NTE), that's up to them.

In the end, It's all about assessing risk and mitigating it.

I found this webpage rather amusing:

http://www.satcure.co.uk/tech/phonesurge.htm

but will leave it to others to comment

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

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , bud--
writes

Not clamping phone wires to earth is a major surge suppression flaw.

It's simply not necessary in towns and cities in the UK. Occurrences of
damage caused by surges on phone lines are practically unheard of.
There are reports of damage caused by direct or nearly lightning
strikes, but of course nothing is going to protect against that.

Houses in villages and remote locations would probably benefit most from
additional protection. You can be sure that critical installations
(hospitals, data centres, etc.) will install additional protection.

British Telecom fit NTE (network termination equipment), also known as a
master socket, which does have surge arrestors built in, but they don't
clamp to earth, they're just across the line:

http://www.buzzhost.co.uk/nte5.php

has a circuit diagram of the NTE, and an interesting photo of damage
caused by a direct lightning strike further down the page (which, of
course, none of w_'s equipment would have prevented.)

An additional factor is that adding further surge protection devices can
affect the line characteristics, causing ADSL sync speeds to drop.

A service panel
suppressor doesn't help the voltage difference at all.

Obviously.

Surprising since the UK seems to be very good on electrical protection
in general.

As I said in an earlier post, a calm, intelligent assessment (not w_'s
level of hand-waving, gibbering hysteria) of each situation is needed
before deciding on the level of protection required.

It's clear that it's simply not needed for most UK domestic phone lines;
this will have been borne out by years and years of experience, looking
at the number of insurance claims, etc. I should think BT's attitude is
that if the customer wishes to install additional protection after the
demarc (NTE), that's up to them.

In the end, It's all about assessing risk and mitigating it.

I found this webpage rather amusing:

http://www.satcure.co.uk/tech/phonesurge.htm

but will leave it to others to comment

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



Wow, it says phone lines there can have as much as 180 [ringing] volts on
them, interesting.

w_tom wrote:
On May 8, 12:11 pm, bud-- wrote:

UL makes no effort to measure a protector's protective ability.
Cuttler Hammer says you are wrong.
URL deleted

Again Bud misrepresents what professional say.

Sorry I picked up the wrong URL. The correct one is

http://tinyurl.com/5m3wrf

UL does not measure protection - in direct contradiction
to what Bud posts.

Using the correct URL, the CH cite above says suppressors have to remain
functional through an initial set of surges (20 surges - 6kv, 3kA). That
is significant functionality.
They can fail safely after that. (Although CH does not say it, I believe
the test for plug-in suppressors is at a lower current.)

A protector can completely fail during UL1449
testing and still be approved.

It can fail after significant functionality (above) has been
established. For instance when subjected to long overvoltage a
suppressor can fail safely.


Meanwhile, Bud repeatedly claims that protectors create fires
because UL1449 was created in 1998.

w_ is so stupid he still can’t figure out the difference between a
creation date and a revision date.

UL1449-2ed (1998) requires thermal disconnects.

UL1449 was approved in 1987 as
Cutler-Hammer also says. Again, Cutler-Hammer disagrees with what
Bud posts.

With minimal intelligence w_ could read in old link "UL1449(2nd edition
1996 [publication date])".

In the new link, 1st sentence: "The Second Edition of UL1449 became
effective August 17, 1998."

Numerous plug-in protectors after 1998 with UL approval
still create a fire risk – the scary pictures:

Lacking valid technical arguments, w_ continues to lie about scary pictures.

None of the links say a damaged suppressor even had a UL label.

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

A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

w_'s religious mantra will protect him from evil.


Still missing - a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still missing – answers to embarrassing 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 reliable information read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:

Plug-in protector typically uses as
little or less than 1/3rd and never more than 2/3rds of rated joules
during protection.

Depends on the surge that arrives. Like a service panel suppressor, buy
one with adequate ratings.


An effective 'whole house' protector uses 100% of its joules for all
types of surges

Depends on the surge that arrives.


A plug-in protector rated at 330 volts will start conducting at
maybe 200 volts. When a larger surge occurs, it conducts at 900
volts.

Large surges can hit service panels so you might get 900V at the
service. The significant impedance of a branch circuit for surges
greatly limits the current that can reach a plug-in suppressor. Many
sources recommend adding a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive"
electronics to further limit the service panel let-through voltage.


Bud posts that electronics contain internal protection of 600 or 800
volts. Intel ATX specs demand that internal protection exceed 1000
volts.

bud quotes Martzloff who says 600-800V.

Just another reason why 330 or 400 let-through volts is
irrelevant.

As usual, w_ can’t understand Martzloff. Voltage let-through is
important to Martzloff because the lowest values cause suppressors to
conduct on surges that are not damaging to connected equipment, which
shortens the lifetime of the suppressor.


"My surge protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".
Reality. A protector was so grossly undersized that voltage exceeded
900 volts.

In w_'s mind, plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings, service
panel suppressors have mega ratings. Plug-in suppressors are readily
available with very high ratings for relatively low cost.

And w_ only buys special MOVs that self destruct at 900V. All the others
depend on energy absorbed.

MOV did what no MOV must do - vaporize.

w_ buys also only buys unlabeled Chinese suppressors that do not have
the UL required thermal disconnect.




Still can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective?

--
bud--

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?
It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
be used simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

I think they used to ring between the red green for one party, yellow
green for the other party, black green, etc.

No, that would defeat the purpose of the party line. The ringers
either had "distinctive ring" (once for Mabel, twice for Maude) or
were frequency tuned.


They did frequency and distinctive rings. But for 2 parties you can ring
red-to-ground for one and green-to-ground for the other. It is in Mike's
Wikipedia link above. My recollection is black was ground and yellow was
sometimes used for a light in the phone (red and green are phone wires).

--
bud--

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?
It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
be used simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

I think they used to ring between the red green for one party, yellow
green for the other party, black green, etc.

No, that would defeat the purpose of the party line. The ringers
either had "distinctive ring" (once for Mabel, twice for Maude) or
were frequency tuned.


They did frequency and distinctive rings. But for 2 parties you can ring
red-to-ground for one and green-to-ground for the other. It is in Mike's
Wikipedia link above. My recollection is black was ground and yellow was
sometimes used for a light in the phone (red and green are phone wires).

Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
(IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
of years).

--
Keith

krw wrote:

Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
(IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
of years).


The lamp was on yellow & black. Red & Green are the pair to the CO.


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In article krw writes:

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 3POWAdBHT/AQLNg6QyObPgN2qBNF3foOsqw8tsoIJdTH9HWfec
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aGa2E++HGN4b0KEf1TQhRkWJJts=
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.70.2067
Xref: shelby.stanford.edu alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:482039 alt.home.repair:656474 alt.tv.tech.hdtv:178799 sci.electronics.basics:272742

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?
It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
be used simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

I think they used to ring between the red green for one party, yellow
green for the other party, black green, etc.

No, that would defeat the purpose of the party line. The ringers
either had "distinctive ring" (once for Mabel, twice for Maude) or
were frequency tuned.


They did frequency and distinctive rings. But for 2 parties you can ring
red-to-ground for one and green-to-ground for the other. It is in Mike's
Wikipedia link above. My recollection is black was ground and yellow was
sometimes used for a light in the phone (red and green are phone wires).

Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
(IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
of years).

6 volts as I recall. I had one of the transformers around ages ago,
it may still be stashed somewhere.

Not sure about the pair, though, since green/red is tip/ring of pair
one, black/yellow is tip/ring of pair two. Putting the transformer between
green and yellow would be putting the light current on the talk pair,
which would be inviting hum on the line.

More modern wiring uses:

colors:
main/stripe
-----------
white/blue green tip 1
blue/white red ring 1

white/orange black tip 2
orange/white yellow ring 2

white/green tip 3
green/white ring 3

white/brown tip 4
brown/white ring 4

( from http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/phone_wiring.html )


Similarly, I would question the reliability of ring on a single line referencing
ground, since party lines tended to be out longer distances -- the ground resistivity
would make it more difficult to get ring current to the phone(s).

I think the differing ring frequency would make more sense, since mechanical
resonance in the ringer provides a reasonable tuning mechanism.


Alan

In article , Alan
writes

Similarly, I would question the reliability of ring on a single line
referencing
ground, since party lines tended to be out longer distances -- the ground
resistivity
would make it more difficult to get ring current to the phone(s).

It did work though. The mechanical bells in older phones in the UK had
a lower impedance (500 ohm coils vs. 2000 ohm coils in newer phones), so
the ringer would draw more current. The ringer was also two bells
either side of a balanced clapper, so it took little to make it ring -
the more current it was able to draw from the line, the louder it rang.

I remember a neighbour with a party line whose phone had problems -
calling her would give a ring tone in the earpiece, but she would claim
that she had never heard the phone ring. Several visits from the GPO
(as was BT) engineers found no fault, the phone always working when they
visited.

Eventually it was discovered that her party line was grounded via the
waste pipe (lead pipe into a cast iron stack disappearing into the
ground) of her cloakroom toilet, which was little used, and in the
summer, when the ground dried out and the water in the toilet pan
evaporated and ran low, the phone lost its earth and failed to ring.
Flushing the toilet restored normal operation to the phone

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

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , Alan
writes

Similarly, I would question the reliability of ring on a single line
referencing
ground, since party lines tended to be out longer distances -- the ground
resistivity
would make it more difficult to get ring current to the phone(s).

It did work though. The mechanical bells in older phones in the UK had
a lower impedance (500 ohm coils vs. 2000 ohm coils in newer phones), so
the ringer would draw more current. The ringer was also two bells
either side of a balanced clapper, so it took little to make it ring -
the more current it was able to draw from the line, the louder it rang.

I remember a neighbour with a party line whose phone had problems -
calling her would give a ring tone in the earpiece, but she would claim
that she had never heard the phone ring. Several visits from the GPO
(as was BT) engineers found no fault, the phone always working when they
visited.

Eventually it was discovered that her party line was grounded via the
waste pipe (lead pipe into a cast iron stack disappearing into the
ground) of her cloakroom toilet, which was little used, and in the
summer, when the ground dried out and the water in the toilet pan
evaporated and ran low, the phone lost its earth and failed to ring.
Flushing the toilet restored normal operation to the phone


Now THAT was _crappy_ phone service!


--
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 article ,
says...
krw wrote:

Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
(IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
of years).


The lamp was on yellow & black. Red & Green are the pair to the CO.

slap! There I was typing, looking at bud-'s post and *STILL* got
the wires crossed. I *shoulda* had a V8.

--
Keith

krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:

Princess phones used the yellow green pair for the dial light. A
transformer was hidden somewhere in teh house to supply the power
(IIRC, a standard 24VAC door bell transformer, but it's been a lot
of years).


The lamp was on yellow & black. Red & Green are the pair to the CO.

slap! There I was typing, looking at bud-'s post and *STILL* got
the wires crossed. I *shoulda* had a V8.


No big deal. Do you remember that wall wart being the first one
recalled for being a fire hazard?


--
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