Surge / Ground / Lightning
Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has
contained those keywords since 2001??? |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
NB wrote:
Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? He is a crossposting geek who knows nothing about electricity, and even less about general science. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On Apr 30, 12:17 pm, Sjouke Burry
wrote: NB wrote: Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? He is a crossposting geek who knows nothing about electricity, and even less about general science. Is that the guy who said he figured out a way to safely handle downed power lines and was going to go try it out? Dave. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
"NB" wrote in message ... Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? I think he sells surge suppressor strips and he uses the newsgroups to promote his products by arguing with people about their effectiveness. Paul |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
David L. Jones wrote:
On Apr 30, 12:17 pm, Sjouke Burry wrote: NB wrote: Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? He is a crossposting geek who knows nothing about electricity, and even less about general science. Is that the guy who said he figured out a way to safely handle downed power lines and was going to go try it out? Dave. I hope so.... |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
"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. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On Apr 29, 9:35 pm, NB wrote:
Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? And yet so far he has not appeared in this thread. W_TOM are you there? |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
Bates wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:35 pm, NB wrote: Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? And yet so far he has not appeared in this thread. W_TOM are you there? Maybe he's another Tesla. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In article ,
Paul E. Schoen wrote: "NB" wrote in message ... Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? I think he sells surge suppressor strips and he uses the newsgroups to promote his products by arguing with people about their effectiveness. That would be a distinct improvement! His posts are all about how surge protection has long been well understood and effective protection isn't that hard but the methods discussed in this thread are all wrong & stupid. There is never any suggestion about what one should actually do, not even an obviously biased one like "buy my product". -- Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On Apr 30, 1:44*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:31:39 -0500, Hugh wrote: Bates wrote: On Apr 29, 9:35 pm, NB wrote: Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has contained those keywords since 2001??? And yet so far he has not appeared in this thread. W_TOM are you there? Maybe he's another Tesla. Many have recently filtered out Googlegroups becauise it's become the overwhelming source of newsgroup spam. That's coincidentally who wacko_tom posts through. I only see his nonsense if someone else is foolish enough to respond to his rants. Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in ones too. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, wrote:
Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in ones too. Trader ignored a reply that corrected his misconceptions. I, too, would sell plug-in protectors to 'experts' who never learned how electricity works. If one wants to stay ignorant, then I, too, would be happy to reap profits from their ignorance. But, effective protectors are sold only by companies with high reputations. Trader never understood that part. Some are foolish as to believe APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable are responsible manufacturers. Effective 'whole house' protectors are sold by GE, Leviton, Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, and Intermatic - to name but a few. APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable don't sell effective protectors. Their products do not even claim to provide protection. But those who know using insults would also recommend those APC, et al protectors. I would also sell trader the Brooklyn Bridge should he remain that naive. Well, this 'sound byte' is already too long for those to know only by attacking the messenger. Others who would spend tens of times less money to have significant protection can easily identify the scam protector. 1) It has no dedicated earthing wire. 2) Its manufacturer does not discuss earthing. 3) It does not claim protection from each type of surge in manufacturer spec numbers. All three points identify every protector from APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable. A grocery store protector is the same ineffective protector circuit selling for a smaller profit. At a profit? Equivalent to that profitable $7 protector is a circuit inside that $150 Monster Cable protector. Higher price means better protection? Yes, when one would also buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Protection in a $150 Monster Cable product is equivalent to that $7 grocery store protector. Both protectors make the same protection claims in numeric specs. Responsible lurkers ignore the insults; instead learn facts. Every responsible engineering source defines what the effective protector does: divert a surge into earth where energy is harmlessly dissipated. Numerous above posters claim a surge protector somehow absorbs energy that even three miles of sky could not stop. Does that silly little one inch part stop what three miles of sky could not? Many posters believe that myth. An earthed 'whole house' protector means surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly in earth AND protector remains functional after a direct lightning strike. Effective protection means nobody knows a surge even existed. Did you grasp that technical reality - or know only because others have posted insults? A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Three point are provided to quickly indentify the ineffective (highly profitable) protectors. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote:
On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, wrote: Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in ones too. But, effective protectors are sold only by companies with high reputations. Effective 'whole house' protectors are sold by GE, Leviton, Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, and Intermatic - to name but a few. On cue w_ comes up with the list of "responsible manufacturers" trader referred to. All of them make plug-in suppressors but SquareD. For the SquareD 'best' service panel suppressor - SDSB1175C - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." - The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device." For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video equipment, televisions, and computers." It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation. Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. It is w_ against the universe. -- bud-- |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 1, 11:24*am, bud-- wrote:
w_tom wrote: On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, wrote: Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here last week. * I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at it. * *Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in ones too. But, effective protectors are sold only by companies with high reputations. Effective 'whole house' protectors are sold by GE, Leviton, Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, and Intermatic - to name but a few. On cue w_ comes up with the list of "responsible manufacturers" trader referred to. All of them make plug-in suppressors but SquareD. For the SquareD 'best' service panel suppressor - SDSB1175C - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." - The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device." For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video equipment, televisions, and computers." It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation. Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. It is *w_ *against the universe. -- bud-- And also never heard an explanation from w_ about the inherrent conflict in another aspect of his position. He says appliance/ electronics manufacturers put surge protection inside the appliance and that is peachy keen and appropriate. Yet he can't explain how it is that an MOV inside the electronics actually protects, while an MOV located in a plug-in is useless. Unless there is a magical earth ground inside the electronic appliance, it must operate under the same conditions as the plug-in. Geez, that inescapable conflict must give w_ nightmares. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On Apr 30, 7:42*pm, w_tom wrote:
On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, wrote: Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here last week. * I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at it. * *Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in ones too. * Trader ignored a reply that corrected his misconceptions. *I, too, would sell plug-in protectors to 'experts' who never learned how electricity works. *If one wants to stay ignorant, then I, too, *would be happy to reap profits from their ignorance. *But, effective protectors are sold only by companies with high reputations. *Trader never understood that part. * Some are foolish as to believe APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable are responsible manufacturers. *Effective 'whole house' protectors are sold by GE, Leviton, Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, and Intermatic - to name but a few. *APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable don't sell effective protectors. *Their products do not even claim to provide protection. *But those who know using insults would also recommend those APC, et al protectors. *I would also sell trader the Brooklyn Bridge should he remain that naive. * Well, this 'sound byte' is already too long for those to know only by attacking the messenger. *Others who would spend tens of times less money to have significant protection can easily identify the scam protector. * 1) It has no dedicated earthing wire. * 2) Its manufacturer does not discuss earthing. * 3) It does not claim protection from each type of surge in manufacturer spec numbers. All three points identify every protector from APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable. *A grocery store protector is the same ineffective protector circuit selling for a smaller profit. *At a profit? Equivalent to that profitable $7 protector is a circuit inside that $150 Monster Cable protector. * Higher price means better protection? Yes, when one would also buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Protection in a $150 Monster Cable product is equivalent to that $7 grocery store protector. *Both protectors make the same protection claims in numeric specs. * *Responsible lurkers ignore the insults; instead learn facts. *Every responsible engineering source defines what the effective protector does: * divert a surge into earth where energy is harmlessly dissipated. *Numerous above posters claim a surge protector somehow absorbs energy that even three miles of sky could not stop. *Does that silly little one inch part stop what three miles of sky could not? Many posters believe that myth. * An earthed 'whole house' protector means surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly in earth AND protector remains functional after a direct lightning strike. *Effective protection means nobody knows a surge even existed. *Did you grasp that technical reality - or know only because others have posted insults? *A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. *Three point are provided to quickly indentify the ineffective (highly profitable) protectors. Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to damages from from surges and lightning offer non such claim or warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several times, anything you do helps a bit. Sure to do it right can cost 10000.00 for protection. But if a storm is commin, even with my mains lightning arrestor and surge protection, and individual Trip units, I still unplug. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:
| For the SquareD 'best' service panel suppressor - SDSB1175C | - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional | protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." | - The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is | used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device." And do you understand the scientific basis why this is so? I doubt it. | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video | equipment, televisions, and computers." | | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation. Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look? Sadly, when marketing gets in control, they tend to hide the imporant engineering and scientific details. It even happens with companies like Square-D. Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices. | Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in | suppressors are NOT effective. It is w_ against the universe. The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not cover all situations or all levels of protection. -- |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from | | Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers | | you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. | | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) | |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 1, 12:21 pm, wrote:
He says appliance/ electronics manufacturers put surge protection inside the appliance and that is peachy keen and appropriate. Yet he can't explain how it is that an MOV inside the electronics actually protects, while an MOV located in a plug-in is useless. If trader read what was posted rather than entertain his assumptions, then trader would understand appliances contain internal protection. When trader misread, then trader reclessly invented MOVs to provide internal protection. What w_tom posted is not found in trader's wild speculation. With a grasp of technology, then trader would have known industry standard numbers that defined internal electronics protection even 35 years ago. Trader does not know these numbers. Trader then assumed that protection must be provided by MOVs. Trader - learn technology BEFORE knowing everything. You have no idea of protection inside all appliances. By reading reclessly and by using wild speculation and ignorance, trader assumes protection must be provided by MOVs. Protection inside appliances is integrated within appliance design. Internal appliance protection that may be overwhelmed if a 'whole house' protector is not installed and properly earthed. Nothing in that paragraph discusses MOVs. MOVs inside appliances is another trader 'wild speculation' due to knowledge without first learning the technology. We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Simple stuff that so confused trader. trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read what was posted. trader again demonstrates insufficient technical kowledge justifies his mockery and insult. Mythical MOV inside appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to see; not what is posted. MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. Had trader read what was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent fictional MOVs inside appliances. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 1, 2:18*pm, ransley wrote:
Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to damages from from surges and lightning offer non such *claim or warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several times, anything you do helps a bit. Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge through it. Gross assumptions are also behind that warranty. Did you read the fine print and learn from so many others who never got that warranty honored? For example, some plujg-in protectors state that a protector from any other manufacturer in the building means their warranty is void. Another says that if you don't submit the claim on their forms, the claim may be rejected. Another says reinbursement is based on depreciation meaning the computer has zero value in a few years. Another says that every electrical conductor that touches that appliance must connect through their protector. Did they forget to mention that a table top is considered an electrical conductor? How many fine print exemptions make a warranty void? Fine print is chock full of exemptions. Warranty says nothing about protection. Steve Uhrig on 17 Jun 2003 in the newsgroup comp.home.automation entitled "UPS for computer and TV" I read the terms of their warranty, which I had saved together with the purchase receipt, and contacted them to submit a warranty claim. I was nice and polite and had everything documented including photos of their product installed next to the fax. They laughed in my face. Almost could not have been more insulting. I wrote to the executive management of the company, copied customer service, sent both return receipt to prove they received them, and never got the courtesy of a reply. Did that protector do protection? Well, how many dishwashers have been surge damaged during the same surges? How many dimmer switches? Where are these surges that the Tripplite protected from? Only way you know that Tripplite provided protection is when everything else - every smoke detector, clock radio, dimmer switch, washing machine, etc was destroyed. You have no idea what that Tripplite did. In fact, Page 42 Figure 8 - the Tripplite may even make create damage to other items in that room. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 1, 3:30*pm, w_tom wrote:
On May 1, 2:18*pm, ransley wrote: Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to damages from from surges and lightning offer non such *claim or warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several times, anything you do helps a bit. * Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge through it. *Gross assumptions are also behind that warranty. *Did you read the fine print and learn from so many others who never got that warranty honored? * For example, some plujg-in protectors state that a protector from any other manufacturer in the building means their warranty is void. Another says that if you don't submit the claim on their forms, the claim may be rejected. Another says reinbursement is based on depreciation meaning the computer has zero value in a few years. Another says that every electrical conductor that touches that appliance must connect through their protector. *Did they forget to mention that a table top is considered an electrical conductor? *How many fine print exemptions make a warranty void? *Fine print is chock full of exemptions. *Warranty says nothing about protection. Steve Uhrig on 17 Jun 2003 in the newsgroup * comp.home.automation entitled "UPS for computer and TV" I read the terms of their warranty, which I had saved together with the purchase receipt, and contacted them to submit a warranty claim. I was nice and polite and had everything documented including photos of their product installed next to the fax. They laughed in my face. Almost could not have been more insulting. I wrote to the executive management of the company, copied customer service, sent both return receipt to prove they received them, and never got the courtesy of a reply. * *Did that protector do protection? *Well, how many dishwashers have been surge damaged during the same surges? *How many dimmer switches? Where are these surges that the Tripplite protected from? *Only way you know that Tripplite provided protection is when everything else - every smoke detector, clock radio, dimmer switch, washing machine, etc was destroyed. *You have no idea what that Tripplite did. * In fact, Page 42 Figure 8 - the Tripplite may even make create damage to other items in that room. Actualy, Double U, bottom slasch, TOM , I had about a $30,000 strike, Tripp was warranting it, and I let my insurance Co go after it. It was bad, even flourescents 3 floors down lit from PLASMA energy. Tripp was there,You are a negative |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
wrote Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in ones too. Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy! |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 1, 4:08*pm, w_tom wrote:
On May 1, 12:21 pm, wrote: *He says appliance/ electronics manufacturers put surge protection inside the appliance and that is peachy keen and appropriate. * * Yet he can't explain how it is that an MOV inside the electronics actually protects, while an MOV located in a plug-in is useless. * If trader read what was posted rather than entertain his assumptions, then trader would understand appliances contain internal protection. *When trader misread, then trader reclessly invented MOVs to provide internal protection. *What w_tom posted is not found in trader's wild speculation. No, I didn't invent MOV's use in appliances, electronics and similar. They are widely used for exactly that purpose. * With a grasp of technology, then trader would have known industry standard numbers that defined internal electronics protection even 35 years ago. *Trader does not know these numbers. *Trader then assumed that protection must be provided by MOVs. *Trader - learn technology BEFORE knowing everything. *You have no idea of protection inside all appliances. *By reading reclessly and by using wild speculation and ignorance, trader assumes protection must be provided by MOVs. * Protection inside appliances is integrated within appliance design. * Internal appliance protection that may be overwhelmed if a 'whole house' protector is not installed and properly earthed. Nothing in that paragraph discusses MOVs. *MOVs inside appliances is another trader 'wild speculation' due to knowledge without first learning the technology. Here, from Appliance Magazine and Appliance Design websites: http://www.appliancedesign.com/CDA/A...00000000271505 "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." There, I've provided credible references that MOVs are used for protection inside electronics and appliances. Now I'd like to see your reference that says they are not used. As usual, I don't expect it will be forthcoming. * *We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. *Simple stuff that so confused trader. *trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read what was posted. * trader again demonstrates insufficient technical kowledge justifies his mockery and insult. * Mythical MOV inside appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to see; not what is posted. * MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. *Had trader read what was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent fictional MOVs inside appliances. Mythical? LOL Anyone with a lick of any technical knowledge or familiar with repair of typical consumer electronics knows MOVs are widely used as the component of choice, because they are what best fit the application. The truth is, for you to admit that they are commonly used inside electronics/appliances creates an insurmountable problem for you. And that is to explain how they could possibly be used there for surge protection when they have to operate under the same conditions as a plug-in suppressor would, ie without a direct nearby earth ground. It's impossible to explain, so you are reduced now to the silly position that MOVs are just not used inside the electronics/appliance at all. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote: Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in a guide from the IEEE at: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf Simpler information is in a guide from the NIST at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf | For the SquareD 'best' service panel suppressor - SDSB1175C | - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional | protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." | - The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is | used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device." And do you understand the scientific basis why this is so? I doubt it. According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment most frequently damaged by lightning is computers with a modem connection TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV connections). All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires. This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna. A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive electronics" particularly with signal and power connections. | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video | equipment, televisions, and computers." | | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation. Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look? The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_. But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power wires. A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house. There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance ground block. Sadly, when marketing gets in control, they tend to hide the imporant engineering and scientific details. It even happens with companies like Square-D. There is a major difference between the units justifying the different warrantee coverage. Not that that has any particular relevance to anything either. Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices. Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care. What is relevant with respect to w_ is that CH makes plug-in suppressors. SquareD does not but suggests their use and limits the claimed protection of power-service-only suppressors. | Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in | suppressors are NOT effective. It is w_ against the universe. The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not cover all situations or all levels of protection. I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write. You have read little on surges and have said you base your beliefs on your experience. Experience shows astrology works. You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed the experiment". You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you probably have not read. But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There apparently is no expert but you. You have never provided a source that agrees with you on disputed issues. -- bud-- |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:
| According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment | most frequently damaged by lightning is | computers with a modem connection | TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV | connections). | All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires. And this is new information how? | This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That | limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems | downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct | induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna. Of course. And this is new info? | A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to | provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive | electronics" particularly with signal and power connections. I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential and using a single point of earthing. You can get substantial voltage difference between different points of earthing even when no lightning happens to strike anywhere near at all. A ground charge builds up under a storm, with the opposite polarity of the lower layer of the cloud base. Now as the storm moves along, what do you think happens to that ground charge? It moves along, too. But, it actually lags behind the storm a bit, varying depending on ground conditions, speed of storm movement, etc. This is one reason why you can often see a lightning strike jump from the backside of a storm and go laterally for even as far as several miles, and then hit ground. I have seen such lightning strikes (a 5 mile one) and seen the damage from ground currents (melted a wire between two electrodes placed about 1/4 mile apart along a storm track direction). | | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB | | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic | | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video | | equipment, televisions, and computers." | | | | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation. | | Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look? | | The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_. | | But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power | wires. | | A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and | signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal | entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined | suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house. Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one. I would just ground everything on a board with a big sheet of copper as grounded backing. | There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only | suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor | and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance | ground block. It can be limited to some degree by the grounding block by having an arc crossover inside. If the voltage exceeds the arc breakdown, you then have a much lower impedance for center conductor surges to get to ground. | Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices. | | Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care. If you want to see options beyond what SQD has, then do look at CH. I have downloaded the SQD and CH catalogs, so I can look (but I will for myself, not for you). | The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds | of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you | figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the | level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to | understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few | simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not | cover all situations or all levels of protection. | | I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges | and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references | provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you | seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write. Given your long diatribes, and your fixation on how you respond to others in an accusatory manner, a lot of your posts go unread even by me. Maybe what you could do is start a blog. bud-vs-surges.blogspot.com maybe? Then you can have a collection of links all together in one place where its easy to refer to them all at once. Or just make a web page. | You have read little on surges and have said you base your beliefs on | your experience. Experience shows astrology works. I've read enough. I've also talked with experts in the field who hold jobs as college professors in EE departments. | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed | the experiment". I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on the explanations. | You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection | Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at | technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you | would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific | explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you | probably have not read. The guide I read that you pointed me to simply did not cover the whole topic. It left out lots of things. Maybe what it covered was all technically correct. But it was not a useful guide for the purpose of determing what solution is needed for all situations. And look carefully at the name "IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee". This is about DEVICES. Proper surge protection involves MORE than just devices. If you are in the business of designing a DEVICE, then sure, go with their advice. If you need to select a DEVICE to fit into an overall plan of surge protection, then sure, use their information about devices. But when the issue has a broader scope than just devices, you may need to recognize that you won't get all your information from one place. | But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There | apparently is no expert but you. I'm not claiming to be an expert. But when people talk about things with even less knowledge than I have, and especially when what they say contradicts actual observations, then I know _they_ cannot be an expert (or else there is some misinformation and the situations are not really a match). For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high frequency energy issues entirely. It's really a matter of degree. But there are low cost solutions that can still justify addressing these less frequent events. For example, a simple small inductor on the power wires just immediately after the point where the neutral is bonded to ground and the hot conductors can be clamped to ground under high voltages (MOVs and/or arc gaps) can force more of the high frequency energy to divert to ground instead of continuing on to the vulnerable devices. Right now, all of my computers are wired on a single power outlet and there is no long term alternate metallic path. Broadband is wireless to another room where a sacrificial wireless router is attached to the cable modem. When I add DSL, that will go on another wireless router and a 2nd wireless bridge will be added to the computer room LAN, on the same power strips, to access it. Unfortunately, I'm getting close to the circuit limit. I need another power circuit. That can create issues. So my current plan is to add a 240 volt circuit. That will be fed through a separate protector, probably a CH one, next to the panel, and fed to the computer room to a single NEMA 14-20 outlet. I'm looking for a plug-in suppressor to supplement at that location. I may have to make one from CH or SQD components, since this is still a 240 volt point. Once that exists, then I can split the circuit to separate 120 volt strips at short distances. | You have never provided a source that agrees with you on disputed issues. Nor do I need to. This is not an issue about trying to get people to agree with me. It's about knowing a broad enough scope of science to be able to determine a solution in a _wide_ range of possibilities, and to know when a given situation really does _not_ match one that a known solution applies to. -- |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) | |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote:
| | wrote | |Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here |last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers |of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real |companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at |it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in |ones too. | | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy! Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing about entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their rants are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the first screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off the posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted. -- |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) | |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote:
For example, some plujg-in protectors state that a protector from any other manufacturer in the building means their warranty is void. Who? Another says that every electrical conductor that touches that appliance must connect through their protector. Did they forget to mention that a table top is considered an electrical conductor? Who has invalidated a warranty because the device is on a table top? -- Doug |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 2, 3:40*pm, wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote: | | wrote | |Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here |last week. * I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers |of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real |companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at |it. * *Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in |ones too. | | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a | salesman for all of those companies too? * Busy guy! Both do not appear to be wrong to me. *They appear more to be arguing about entirely different issues. * I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug- in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors, as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer protection and can be part of an effective solution. Go back and read where w_ posted his list of "real" surge manufacturers who offer whole house and commercial suppressors, while disparaging companies who make plug-ins as frauds. Funny thing happened though. I showed him datsheets and product specs that showed that every company on his list of "real" surge protection companies except one, also make plug-ins, discuss their effective use, etc. If you believe w- is right on this, then maybe you can help him out by: 1 - Providing a reference that backs up his assertion that plug-in protectors offer no protection at all 2 - Explain the inescapable contradiction in w_'s position. He has posted that electronics/appliances, etc have built-in surge protection that is effective. Yet, those appliances use MOV's and are working under the same restrictions as a plug-in would, ie they have no direct earth ground nearby. So, how exactly is it that one can work, while the other is useless? BTW, w_ faced with this, chose to simply deny that MOV's are used in electronics/appliances, which just discredits him more. A few post back I provided references, as if any are needed, that MOVs are in fact used in electronics/appliances. Plus, while MOV's are widely used in electronics/appliances, it isn't even an issue as to the particular component because w_ claims there can be no protection period, without a direct, nearby earth ground. But I can't be entirely sure because their rants are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the first screenful is all quoted text. *And my googlegroups filter is killing off the posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted. -- |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) | |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
wrote in message
... In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote: | | wrote | |Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here |last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers |of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real |companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at |it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in |ones too. | | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy! Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing about entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their rants are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the first screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off the posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted. Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express? -- “There’s nothing on it worthwhile, we’re not going to watch it in this household, and I don’t want it in your intellectual diet.”. -attributed to Philo T. Farnsworth, by his children |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote:
| wrote in message | ... | In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote: | | | | wrote | | | |Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here | |last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers | |of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real | |companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at | |it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in | |ones too. | | | | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime | as a | | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy! | | Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing | about | entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their | rants | are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the | first | screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off | the | posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted. | | Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express? Not that I know of. But my reader is configured to filter out Googlegroups due to Google's lack of action to deal with the massive spam floods they let reach Usenet. Not only is there many times as much spam from Googlegroups as legitimate posts in the groups I read, but in many, the level of normal posts has fallen, suggesting that this issue is causing some to abandon Usenet because of this. -- |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) | |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 1, 7:17 pm, ransley wrote:
I had about a $30,000 strike, Tripp was warranting it, and I let my insurance Co go after it. It was bad, even flourescents 3 floors down lit from PLASMA energy. Tripp was there,You are a negative You had a surge protector and still suffered damage? That was effective protection? Why does your telco (connected to overhead wires all over town) suffer far more massive surges without damage? Why no damage using a protector that costs maybe twenty times less money? Why does the telco instead by a protector without that big buck warranty? We properly earth a 'whole house' protector so that lightning causes no damage. So that a surge remains completely unknown to the homeowner. So that the protector even remains functional. Warranty means effective protection? Where was that protection? Did Tripplite pay for all $30,000 of damage? Of course not. Tripplite even provides no numeric specs that claim protection. You had a surge protector, suffered damage, and then call that damage acceptable? We upgrade earthing and install a 'whole house' protector so that direct lightning strikes result in no damage. So that the surge is not even known. Effective protectors don't hype a mythical quarter million dollar warranty. Effective protectors divert energy into earth where it does no harm - and at less cost. And no big buck warranty. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On May 2, 4:24 pm, wrote:
I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug- in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors, as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer protection and can be part of an effective solution. trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was posted. Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of surge that typically does not do damage. How would you know? Well, w_tom said it repeatedly - and trader ignored it. trader routinely ignored what he did not understand or did not want to understand. Typically destructive surges seek earth ground. trader, did you grasp that point? If permitted inside a building, then that surge may seek earth ground destructively via household appliances - overwhelm protection inside appliances. trader - did you grasp that? Surge protectors do not stop, block, or absorb that surge energy. A protector simply connects surge energy to all other wires. trader - that fact comes from any MOV datasheet. You can read a datasheet - right? What happens when one of those wires is connected short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth ground? No destructive surge energy inside a building. AND no Page 42 Figure 8 - surge earthed destructively via an adjacent appliance. trader did not bother to read what the IEEE says when a plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too earth ground - Page 42 Figure 8? Oh. Sorry, trader. Nobody is posting sound bytes. It required you to grasp the technology. It required trader to also know that protection inside all appliances is not provided by MOVs. It also required you to know what w_tom posted and what you never did grasp. Page 42 Figure 8 happens when a properly earthed 'whole house' protector did not earth the typically destructive type of surge. Another paragraph repeatedly post, but ignored by trader. trader – did you ever learn of the many types of surges? Or did you just know that all surges are same? That also explains why trader again misrepresents what was posted. I suggest trader read what was posted rather than invent what he wanted to hear. trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and sufficient expertise. Effective protectors do as the NIST state - "simply divert [the surge] to ground, where it can do no harm." However, no earth ground means no effective protection. Sales promoters will never admit that. Profits would be at risk. Since this is not explained in terms of 'black and white', then trader sees what he wants to see but was never posted: Providing a reference that backs up his assertion that plug-in protectors offer no protection at all |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
Surge / Ground / Lightning
On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom put
finger to keyboard and composed: On May 1, 2:18*pm, ransley wrote: Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to damages from from surges and lightning offer non such *claim or warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several times, anything you do helps a bit. Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge through it. Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike through the TV? - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote:
On May 2, 4:24 pm, wrote: I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug- in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors, as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer protection and can be part of an effective solution. trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was posted. "No earth ground means no effective protection." Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of surge that typically does not do damage. Gee - thats kinda like "plug-in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit." But UL listed plug-in suppressors are required to have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H–N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surges. trader did not bother to read what the IEEE says when a plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too earth ground [sic] - Page 42 Figure 8? It is, of course, w_'s favorite lie, not what the IEEE guide says. The guide says "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." I suggest trader read what was posted rather than invent what he wanted to hear. But half the time w_ invents what he wants to hear. trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted But w_’s favorite technique is misrepresenting what people post. trader just does not have sufficient electrical knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional citations [sic]. w_ just does not have sufficient electrical knowledge to read simple sources: - Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors (you don't have to read, just look at the pretty pictures)? - 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)? Effective protectors do as the NIST state [sic] What does the NIST state? "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." However, no earth ground means no effective protection. w_ said "nobody is posting sound bytes" - but there it is. Poor w_ can't understand the explanation in the IEEE guide - plug-in suppressor work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing. The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere. (Guide starting pdf page 40.) Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why can’t you find sources w_? I am beginning to think you are full of crap! -- bud-- |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
Surge / Ground / Lightning
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar wrote:
| On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom put | finger to keyboard and composed: | |On May 1, 2:18?pm, ransley wrote: | Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to | damages from from surges and lightning offer non such ?claim or | warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one | step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several | times, anything you do helps a bit. | | Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV |destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge |through it. | | Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike | through the TV? A surge will take _every_ path. Where that ends up with a voltage difference somewhere, anywhere, that exceeds the device breakdown voltage, then you will have current flow across there. And if that breakdown means damage, as it would for things like a CMOS circuit component, the device would be damaged. -- |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) | |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote:
... trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and sufficient expertise. w_tom reminds me of Yoda :-) ... no earth ground means no effective protection. Bull****. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection. Nick |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
Surge / Ground / Lightning
wrote in message
... In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote: | wrote in message | ... | In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote: | | | | wrote | | | |Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here | |last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers | |of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real | |companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at | |it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in | |ones too. | | | | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime | as a | | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy! | | Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing | about | entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their | rants | are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the | first | screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing off | the | posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted. | | Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express? Not that I know of. But my reader is configured to filter out Googlegroups due to Google's lack of action to deal with the massive spam floods they let reach Usenet. Not only is there many times as much spam from Googlegroups as legitimate posts in the groups I read, but in many, the level of normal posts has fallen, suggesting that this issue is causing some to abandon Usenet because of this. Thanks for the info. |
Surge / Ground / Lightning
|
Surge / Ground / Lightning
w_tom wrote: On May 2, 4:24 pm, wrote: I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug- in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors, as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer protection and can be part of an effective solution. trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was posted. Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of surge that typically does not do damage. How would you know? Well, w_tom said it repeatedly - and trader ignored it. trader routinely ignored what he did not understand or did not want to understand. Typically destructive surges seek earth ground. 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. Take a look in the Google archives and see if you can find even one post agreeing with tom, and his crackpot theories. He doesn't understand the concept that a piece of wire is more than a lump of metal, that it has inductance, resistance, and capacitance between it and other conductors. The only thing tom is qualified to write about is aluminum foil hats. -- 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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter