The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring
It probably doesn't need a neutral wire because it is just
a switch. The only difference between it and a regular
switch is that it has a little wind up clock motor in it to
turn the switch off after the time you set.

If it is an electronic time switch it probably has a battery
in it that will run the timer. The problem with this
set up is that you have to replace the battery every once
in a while. I had one and it had to be turned off between
uses or it ran the battery down very quickly. This kind
of defeated its purpose, since you couldn't just start
the timer and walk off and forget it until the next time.
I took it out and put in one of the mechanical ones.

Bill

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed end)?

The advantage of not needing a neutral is that there is often not a
neutral available at a switch. Because timers that are powered from the
line are becoming so common the most recent code requires a neutral at
most switches in new wiring. As you probably know, your timer doesn't
need a switch because it has a battery.

--
bud--

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed end)?



No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked. Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I know grin. I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

On 3/1/2012 10:29 AM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600,
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed end)?



No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked.

Some timers used the ground wire in place of the neutral. If the current
is within the allowed "leakage" current it can (or at least could) pass
UL. It is possible that is what Leviton is doing (so it needs to be at
the power end). (Doesn't seem likely since there is a battery.) It is
one reason the code now generally wants neutrals at switch locations.

Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I knowgrin. I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

I would expect that if the timer is turning the light on maybe both
switches wouldn't work. If timer is not turning the light on both
switches should work. Does not sound like that is what is happening.

--
bud--

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:16:59 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 10:29 AM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600,
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed end)?



No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked.

Some timers used the ground wire in place of the neutral. If the current
is within the allowed "leakage" current it can (or at least could) pass
UL. It is possible that is what Leviton is doing (so it needs to be at
the power end). (Doesn't seem likely since there is a battery.) It is
one reason the code now generally wants neutrals at switch locations.

Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I knowgrin. I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

I would expect that if the timer is turning the light on maybe both
switches wouldn't work. If timer is not turning the light on both
switches should work. Does not sound like that is what is happening.


Just to clarify in case I wasn't clear... this timer replaced the hot
end switch. The other end (leg end) had to be rewired tho when this
timer was wired up. If you didn't see the schematic and want to, I
posted it in early message.

On 3/1/2012 1:16 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/1/2012 10:29 AM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600,
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed
end)?



No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked.

Some timers used the ground wire in place of the neutral. If the current
is within the allowed "leakage" current it can (or at least could) pass
UL. It is possible that is what Leviton is doing (so it needs to be at
the power end). (Doesn't seem likely since there is a battery.) It is
one reason the code now generally wants neutrals at switch locations.

Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I knowgrin. I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

I would expect that if the timer is turning the light on maybe both
switches wouldn't work. If timer is not turning the light on both
switches should work. Does not sound like that is what is happening.

Some of these timers use a voltage robbing circuit to power them, which
is a pia because they shut down when the bulb that they're controlling
blows, and have to be reprogrammed.
Strangely, the diagram for the 3 way wiring showed the timer being
located at the feed end of the circuit, but when wiring it as a single
pole, it doesn't matter which of the two wires you connect to are hot. I
haven't installed this particular model, but when I've done other
Intermatic models, it hasn't mattered which side the thing went on.
(lol) None of them work very well, for very long, anyway.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:10:58 -0500, RBM wrote:

On 3/1/2012 1:16 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/1/2012 10:29 AM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600,
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed
end)?



No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked.

Some timers used the ground wire in place of the neutral. If the current
is within the allowed "leakage" current it can (or at least could) pass
UL. It is possible that is what Leviton is doing (so it needs to be at
the power end). (Doesn't seem likely since there is a battery.) It is
one reason the code now generally wants neutrals at switch locations.

Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I knowgrin. I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

I would expect that if the timer is turning the light on maybe both
switches wouldn't work. If timer is not turning the light on both
switches should work. Does not sound like that is what is happening.

Some of these timers use a voltage robbing circuit to power them, which
is a pia because they shut down when the bulb that they're controlling
blows, and have to be reprogrammed.
Strangely, the diagram for the 3 way wiring showed the timer being
located at the feed end of the circuit, but when wiring it as a single
pole, it doesn't matter which of the two wires you connect to are hot. I
haven't installed this particular model, but when I've done other
Intermatic models, it hasn't mattered which side the thing went on.
(lol) None of them work very well, for very long, anyway.


That doesn't sound good. Gee I hope it lasts a while after all the
time it took me to get it right.

On 3/1/2012 6:04 PM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:10:58 -0500, wrote:

On 3/1/2012 1:16 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/1/2012 10:29 AM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600,
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed
end)?



No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked.

Some timers used the ground wire in place of the neutral. If the current
is within the allowed "leakage" current it can (or at least could) pass
UL. It is possible that is what Leviton is doing (so it needs to be at
the power end). (Doesn't seem likely since there is a battery.) It is
one reason the code now generally wants neutrals at switch locations.

Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I knowgrin. I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

I would expect that if the timer is turning the light on maybe both
switches wouldn't work. If timer is not turning the light on both
switches should work. Does not sound like that is what is happening.

Some of these timers use a voltage robbing circuit to power them, which
is a pia because they shut down when the bulb that they're controlling
blows, and have to be reprogrammed.
Strangely, the diagram for the 3 way wiring showed the timer being
located at the feed end of the circuit, but when wiring it as a single
pole, it doesn't matter which of the two wires you connect to are hot. I
haven't installed this particular model, but when I've done other
Intermatic models, it hasn't mattered which side the thing went on.
(lol) None of them work very well, for very long, anyway.


That doesn't sound good. Gee I hope it lasts a while after all the
time it took me to get it right.

Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast. Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they are
indestructible.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:29 -0500, RBM wrote:

On 3/1/2012 6:04 PM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:10:58 -0500, wrote:

On 3/1/2012 1:16 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/1/2012 10:29 AM, Doug wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600,
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed
end)?



No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked.

Some timers used the ground wire in place of the neutral. If the current
is within the allowed "leakage" current it can (or at least could) pass
UL. It is possible that is what Leviton is doing (so it needs to be at
the power end). (Doesn't seem likely since there is a battery.) It is
one reason the code now generally wants neutrals at switch locations.

Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I knowgrin. I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

I would expect that if the timer is turning the light on maybe both
switches wouldn't work. If timer is not turning the light on both
switches should work. Does not sound like that is what is happening.

Some of these timers use a voltage robbing circuit to power them, which
is a pia because they shut down when the bulb that they're controlling
blows, and have to be reprogrammed.
Strangely, the diagram for the 3 way wiring showed the timer being
located at the feed end of the circuit, but when wiring it as a single
pole, it doesn't matter which of the two wires you connect to are hot. I
haven't installed this particular model, but when I've done other
Intermatic models, it hasn't mattered which side the thing went on.
(lol) None of them work very well, for very long, anyway.


That doesn't sound good. Gee I hope it lasts a while after all the
time it took me to get it right.

Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast. Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they are
indestructible.


I live in an area that doesn't get too many spikes but I've gotten
some over the last 10 years or so. I haven't programed it yet but it
works in manual mode so I presume that means not DOA. I guess time
will tell. Thanks for the info...

On Mar 1, 11:29*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. *What is the advantage of
this? * Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed end)?

No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. *I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. *As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked. * Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. * It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. *As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. *To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I know grin. * *I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

Doesn't sound like it works the way I'd expect either.
I'd keep after their tech support and see what they
have to say.

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 05:47:11 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 1, 11:29*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:46:25 -0600, bud--
wrote:

On 3/1/2012 7:28 AM, Doug wrote:
The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. *What is the advantage of
this? * Still trying to learn wiring

Congratulations!
Did you get it working with the timer at the light-end (not hot feed end)?

No Bud, I had to wire it at the hot feed end per instructions. *I
tried almost a whole day everything I could think of, getting
frustrated trying the leg end until I read on a site (not in the
instructions by the way) that it had to be wired from the hot feed
end. *As soon as I switched it to the feed end, it worked. * Funny
thing is I haven't programmed it yet, just working it in manual mode
right now. * It is kinda funky tho on a 3 way switch because the timer
controls the 3 way circuit (well at least in manual mode) so if you
try to control at the other end, it won't work. *As long as the timer
is turned on, the other switch works fine. *To me, that's not a true 3
way circuit but what do I know grin. * *I think it really would be
better on a single pole switch which is what I plan to do with the
other timer I have.

Doesn't sound like it works the way I'd expect either.
I'd keep after their tech support and see what they
have to say.


I gave up on their support. I even left a support question on their
website and never got any reply. Anyway the document I found on line
answered the question and since I couldn't get it to work until I
followed the document's instructions, satisfies me that it has to be
wired at the hot end. Unfortunately in this case, I wish it was
otherwise but no choice unless I want to rewire my home for that
circuit and I do not wish to do that.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:28:57 -0600, "Doug"
wrote:

The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. What is the advantage of
this? Still trying to learn wiring

Some times there is no neutral wire. Then it's an advantage.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:29 -0500, RBM wrote:



Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast.

What about a whole house surge-suprpressor. I bought a moderately
priced one but havent' had time to install it yet.

Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they are
indestructible.

On 3/3/2012 12:16 AM, micky wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:29 -0500, wrote:



Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast.

What about a whole house surge-suprpressor. I bought a moderately
priced one but havent' had time to install it yet.

Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they are
indestructible.

Whole house surge supressors are fine for more durable electrical
devices, depending upon the make and model of course, however unless
you're spending a boat load of money on it, it won't do squat for
sensitive electronic devices

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 07:59:51 -0500, RBM wrote:

On 3/3/2012 12:16 AM, micky wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:29 -0500, wrote:



Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast.

What about a whole house surge-suprpressor. I bought a moderately
priced one but havent' had time to install it yet.

Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they are
indestructible.

Whole house surge supressors are fine for more durable electrical
devices, depending upon the make and model of course, however unless
you're spending a boat load of money on it, it won't do squat for
sensitive electronic devices

Okay. I had a boat load of money, but I spent it on the house. A
rowboat, at least.

On 3/3/2012 6:59 AM, RBM wrote:
On 3/3/2012 12:16 AM, micky wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:29 -0500, wrote:



Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast.

What about a whole house surge-suprpressor. I bought a moderately
priced one but havent' had time to install it yet.

Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they are
indestructible.

Whole house surge supressors are fine for more durable electrical
devices, depending upon the make and model of course, however unless
you're spending a boat load of money on it, it won't do squat for
sensitive electronic devices

They should protect electronics that only connects to power. A lot of
sensitive electronics also has phone or cable connections. In that case
they may or may not completely protect (they don't limit the voltage
between power and signal wires). They should be listed under UL1449.

--
bud--

On 3/3/2012 1:46 PM, bud-- wrote:
On 3/3/2012 6:59 AM, RBM wrote:
On 3/3/2012 12:16 AM, micky wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:29 -0500, wrote:



Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast.

What about a whole house surge-suprpressor. I bought a moderately
priced one but havent' had time to install it yet.

Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I
use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a
single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they
are
indestructible.

Whole house surge supressors are fine for more durable electrical
devices, depending upon the make and model of course, however unless
you're spending a boat load of money on it, it won't do squat for
sensitive electronic devices

They should protect electronics that only connects to power. A lot of
sensitive electronics also has phone or cable connections. In that case
they may or may not completely protect (they don't limit the voltage
between power and signal wires). They should be listed under UL1449.

This is certainly one area I know little about. Every time I go through
this exercise, I come up pretty much empty handed. My suppliers explain
it to me like this: Lightning and voltage spike devices are rated by "
clamping time", which is how fast they can shunt the spike, and by
"joules", which is the size of a spike that they can handle. I can buy
one for $5, and I can buy one for $20,000. I have always passed on the
$20K. When the customer really insists on something, I use a $50 unit
that wires into the service panel. Problem is, I have no way to
determine if it's actually protecting anything. From my experience,
the most sensitive things, the ones that seem first to blow out during
an electrical storm are telephone answering machines, which of course
have the phone line as well as power, garage door operators, and GFCI
outlets

On Mar 5, 7:08*am, RBM wrote:
On 3/3/2012 1:46 PM, bud-- wrote:



On 3/3/2012 6:59 AM, RBM wrote:
On 3/3/2012 12:16 AM, micky wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:29 -0500, wrote:

Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast.

What about a whole house surge-suprpressor. I bought a moderately
priced one but havent' had time to install it yet.

Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I
use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a
single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they
are
indestructible.

Whole house surge supressors are fine for more durable electrical
devices, depending upon the make and model of course, however unless
you're spending a boat load of money on it, it won't do squat for
sensitive electronic devices

They should protect electronics that only connects to power. A lot of
sensitive electronics also has phone or cable connections. In that case
they may or may not completely protect (they don't limit the voltage
between power and signal wires). They should be listed under UL1449.

This is certainly one area I know little about. Every time I go through
this exercise, I come up pretty much empty handed. My suppliers explain
it to me like this: Lightning and voltage spike devices are rated by "
clamping time", which is how fast they can shunt the spike, and by
"joules", which is the size of a spike that they can handle. I can buy
one for $5, and I can buy one for $20,000. I have always passed on the
$20K. When the customer really insists on something, I use a $50 unit
that wires into the service panel. Problem is, I have no way to
determine * if it's actually protecting anything. From my experience,
the most sensitive things, the ones that seem first to blow out during
an electrical storm are telephone answering machines, which of course
have the phone line as well as power, garage door operators, and GFCI
outlets- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I know what you mean. That's why besides the specs
and claims, I would not use one from an unknown
manufacturer. I recently installed an Intermatic IG1240RC,
about $100, for a friend. I believe that properly installed
they do offer sufficient protection on the incoming AC
power. For devices like TV, phone, etc that are connected
to other lines, whole house protection plus
plug-in surge protectors that clamp the other lines to
the AC is the best we can do.

On 3/5/2012 8:01 AM, wrote:
On Mar 5, 7:08 am, wrote:
On 3/3/2012 1:46 PM, bud-- wrote:



On 3/3/2012 6:59 AM, RBM wrote:
On 3/3/2012 12:16 AM, micky wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:15:29 -0500, wrote:

Well, from my experience with Intermatic electronic timers, most
failures occur right at the time of installation, at such a high rate
that I always carried two on my truck. If you're in an area subject to
voltage spikes from lightning, they're toast.

What about a whole house surge-suprpressor. I bought a moderately
priced one but havent' had time to install it yet.

Other than spikes and
DOA's , I've seen them last for many years and work just fine. One
caveat, they don't work well on 3 way systems where the switches are
pretty far apart, like front door and garage. These days, unless the
customer specifically requests and electronic in wall time switch, I
use
the Tork in wall mechanical timer. They have to be installed in a
single
gang switch box, by themselves, and they require a neutral, but they
are
indestructible.

Whole house surge supressors are fine for more durable electrical
devices, depending upon the make and model of course, however unless
you're spending a boat load of money on it, it won't do squat for
sensitive electronic devices

They should protect electronics that only connects to power. A lot of
sensitive electronics also has phone or cable connections. In that case
they may or may not completely protect (they don't limit the voltage
between power and signal wires). They should be listed under UL1449.

This is certainly one area I know little about. Every time I go through
this exercise, I come up pretty much empty handed. My suppliers explain
it to me like this: Lightning and voltage spike devices are rated by "
clamping time", which is how fast they can shunt the spike, and by
"joules", which is the size of a spike that they can handle. I can buy
one for $5, and I can buy one for $20,000. I have always passed on the
$20K. When the customer really insists on something, I use a $50 unit
that wires into the service panel. Problem is, I have no way to
determine if it's actually protecting anything. From my experience,
the most sensitive things, the ones that seem first to blow out during
an electrical storm are telephone answering machines, which of course
have the phone line as well as power, garage door operators, and GFCI
outlets

About everything has MOVs as the voltage clamping element. MOVs are fast
enough ("clamping time") for any surge.

The maximum surge with any reasonable probability of occurring is
10,000A per service wire. (That is based on a 100,000A lightning strike
to the nearest utility pole in typical urban overhead distribution.)
Higher ratings mean longer life. A guide from the IEEE suggests 20,000 -
70,000A per wire for residential, or 40,000 - 120,000A in high lightning
areas.

For best protection the entry protectors for phone and cable should
connect with a _short_ ground wire to the building earthing system. The
distance from the N-G service bond to the common connection point should
also be short. The longer the ground wire the higher the voltage between
power and signal wires. For phones, 10 feet is about the maximum. Also
short wire for dish, but probably not as critical.

GFCIs probably all have MOVs L-N. The UL standard maybe 5 years ago
required better surge protection.



I know what you mean. That's why besides the specs
and claims, I would not use one from an unknown
manufacturer. I recently installed an Intermatic IG1240RC,
about $100, for a friend. I believe that properly installed
they do offer sufficient protection on the incoming AC
power. For devices like TV, phone, etc that are connected
to other lines, whole house protection plus
plug-in surge protectors that clamp the other lines to
the AC is the best we can do.

I agree on using major-brand devices.

And I agree that when using a plug-in protector, all wires (power,
phone, cable, dish, ...) to a set of protected equipment need to go
through the protector.

--
bud--

On Mar 2, 5:00*pm, micky wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:28:57 -0600, "Doug"
wrote:

The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. *What is the advantage of
this? * Still trying to learn wiring

Some times there is no neutral wire. Then it's an advantage.

Some of them can pickup power through the attached light bulb. As
others have pointed out they quit working if its a single bulb and it
blows. I have one of that type of timers on an outdoor light circuit
and that's not a problem for me as there are three lights on it. But
it won't work if I put compact florescents in.

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 12:24:37 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote:

On Mar 2, 5:00*pm, micky wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:28:57 -0600, "Doug"
wrote:

The timer I wired in (successfully I might add) says in the sales
sheet it doesn't require a neutral wire. *What is the advantage of
this? * Still trying to learn wiring

Some times there is no neutral wire. Then it's an advantage.

Some of them can pickup power through the attached light bulb. As
others have pointed out they quit working if its a single bulb and it
blows. I have one of that type of timers on an outdoor light circuit
and that's not a problem for me as there are three lights on it. But
it won't work if I put compact florescents in.

Plug a 7W night light into the circuit. That's probably enough current to get
the switch to work.

On Mar 5, 7:08 am, RBM wrote:
...: Lightning and voltage spike devices are rated by "
clamping time", which is how fast they can shunt the spike, and by
"joules", which is the size of a spike that they can handle. I can buy
one for $5, and I can buy one for $20,000. I have always passed on the
$20K.

Protection is defined by the item that absorbs hundreds of thousands
of joules. That is not a protector adjacent to appliances that does
not even claim to protect from typically destructive surges. That is
earth ground.

The 'whole house' protector protects all appliances even from
direct lightning strikes because it connects destructive surges to
earth. The distance to earth is critical (ie 'less than 10 feet'). A
protector too far from earth and too close to the appliance can
connect that surge to earth destructively via the appliance. An
adjacent protector does not even claim protection.

Your 'whole house' protector also does not protect from surges.
Instead, it connects destructive surges to earth. Hundreds of
thousands of joules must be absorbed somewhere. No way around that
requirement.

Either you connect that surge to earth BEFORE it can enter the
building. Or that surge goes hunting for earth destructively via
appliances. With or without an adjacent protector.

A typically lightning strike is 20,000 amps. A minimally sized
'whole house' protector starts at 50,000 amps. Direct lightning
strikes must not even damage a protector. 'Whole house' protectors
are sold by the more responsible companies including General Electric,
Leviton, ABB, Siemens, Keison, Polyphaser, Square D, and Intermatic.
A Cutler-Hammer solution sells in Lowes and Home Depot even for less
than $50.

But again, most important is the item that absorbs those hundreds of
thousands of joules. Earth ground. To connect a surge to earth means
a protector must be low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to that
single point earth ground. This is how it is done in every facility
that can never have damage. A protector is only as effective as its
dedicated and 'must always exist' connection to earth. The effective
protector is rated by how much current it can connect to earth. A
least 50,000 amps.

On Mar 6, 11:05*am, westom wrote:
On Mar 5, 7:08 am, RBM wrote:

...: Lightning and voltage spike devices are rated by "
clamping time", which is how fast they can shunt the spike, and by
"joules", which is the size of a spike that they can handle. I can buy
one for $5, and I can buy one for $20,000. I have always passed on the
$20K.

* Protection is defined by the item that absorbs hundreds of thousands
of joules. *That is not a protector adjacent to appliances that does
not even claim to protect from typically destructive surges. *That is
earth ground.

Here we go again with the surge protector nut.
No one said a surge protector absorbs hundreds
of thousands of joules. No one said anything about
"absorb", until you did. But now that will be the
strawman to argue against.



* The *'whole house' protector protects all appliances even from
direct lightning strikes because it connects destructive surges to
earth.

It certainly may, but I would not count on it being 100%
effective and would not be surprised if there
were some damage to AC appliances by a massive
direct lightning hit to a house. In my view, the more realistic
and common scenario is that they will protect against surges
on the incoming AC lines that are caused by nearby lightning
strikes.


The distance to earth is critical (ie 'less than 10 feet'). *A
protector too far from earth and too close to the appliance can
connect that surge to earth destructively via the appliance. *An
adjacent protector does not even claim protection.

Of course the IEEE disagrees and says that the
plug-in, point-of-use type of protectors can and should
be used as part of a tiered protection strategy.



* Your 'whole house' protector also does not protect from surges.
Instead, it connects destructive surges to earth. *Hundreds of
thousands of joules must be absorbed somewhere. *No way around that
requirement.

I guess that's a new version of English that you're using.
By any rational usage, if a whole house protector connects
destructive surges to earth and as a result the electrical gear in the
house is not damaged, then it has indeed "protected from
surges".



* Either you connect that surge to earth BEFORE it can enter the
building. *Or that surge goes hunting for earth destructively via
appliances. *With or without an adjacent protector.

So now a whole house surge protector installed at the
panel in my basement is now useless? Not only the IEEE,
but every surge protector manufacturer that I know of
disagrees.




* A typically lightning strike is 20,000 amps. *A minimally sized
'whole house' protector starts at 50,000 amps. *Direct lightning
strikes must not even damage a protector.

Says who? I live in an area with moderate thunderstorm
activity. My house has NEVER been directly hit by lightning.
Don't know a single person's home who has. I do know of
instances of appliances damaged during thunderstorms
when there were hits somewhere in the nearby area.

Bud already outlined how it's very unlikely a full lighting
surge is going to make it to the surge protector anyway,
because arcing will occur BEFORE the surge protector,
leaving the protector with more likely a 10,000 amp per
phase surge.

So, why is it wrong if I choose to use a surge protector that
can handle 20,000 amps?



*'Whole house' protectors
are sold by the more responsible companies including General Electric,
Leviton, ABB, Siemens, Keison, Polyphaser, Square D, and Intermatic.
A Cutler-Hammer solution sells in Lowes and Home Depot even for less
than $50.

I've asked you in the past to show us the link to that $50 mythical
protector
at HD or Lowes that meets your above 50,000 amp miniumum rating.
Yet, here we go again. It's never been provided because it doesn't
exist.





* But again, most important is the item that absorbs those hundreds of
thousands of joules. *Earth ground. *To connect a surge to earth means
a protector must be low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to that
single point earth ground. *This is how it is done in every facility
that can never have damage. *A protector is only as effective as its
dedicated and 'must always exist' connection to earth. * The effective
protector is rated by how much current it can connect to earth. *A
least 50,000 amps.

Then why do electronics manufacturers put surge protection
in their appliances? You have a 10 ft ground on your microwave
oven?

On 3/6/2012 10:05 AM, westom wrote:
On Mar 5, 7:08 am, wrote:
...: Lightning and voltage spike devices are rated by "
clamping time", which is how fast they can shunt the spike, and by
"joules", which is the size of a spike that they can handle. I can buy
one for $5, and I can buy one for $20,000. I have always passed on the
$20K.

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" .
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home"


Protection is defined by the item that absorbs hundreds of thousands
of joules. That is not a protector adjacent to appliances that does
not even claim to protect from typically destructive surges.

Complete nonsense.


The 'whole house' protector protects all appliances even from
direct lightning strikes because it connects destructive surges to
earth.

A service panel protector is a real good idea.
But what does the NIST surge guide say?
"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."

That is because a service panel protector does not limit the voltage
between power and phone/cable/... wires. The NIST surge guide suggests
that most equipment damage is from high voltage between power and signal
wires.

A service panel protector will very likely to protect equipment
connected only to power wires.

An
adjacent protector does not even claim protection.

If westom could only read....
For instance westom's "responsible companies" below.


Your 'whole house' protector also does not protect from surges.
Instead, it connects destructive surges to earth. Hundreds of
thousands of joules must be absorbed somewhere. No way around that
requirement.

Hundreds of thousands of joules can not make it into a house. At about
6,000V there is arc-over from the service panel busbars to the
enclosure. After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of
volts. Since the enclosure connects to the earthing system that dumps
most of the surge to earth even with no surge protectors.

The amount of energy that can make it to a plug-in protector is
surprisingly small, even with a very near very strong lightning strike.
In a study by the author of the NIST surge guide the maximum was 35
joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less. Plug in protectors
connected correctly and with high ratings are very likely to protect
from even a very near very strong lightning strike.


'Whole house' protectors
are sold by the more responsible companies including General Electric,
Leviton, ABB, Siemens, Keison, Polyphaser, Square D, and Intermatic.

All these "responsible companies" except SquareD and Polyphaser make
plug-in protectors and say they are effective. SquareD says for their
"best" service panel protector "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use."

Why would westom's "responsible companies" make plug-in protectors that
westom says don't work?


But again, most important is the item that absorbs those hundreds of
thousands of joules. Earth ground.

Everyone is in favor of earthing. But it is westom's fetish. He believes
that plug-in protectors can not possibly work because they are not well
earthed. He googles for "surge" in his crusade to eliminate the scourge
of plug-in protectors. He is worse than a mormon missionary.

The effective
protector is rated by how much current it can connect to earth. A
least 50,000 amps.

The worst case surge is 10,000A per service wire (referenced in the IEEE
surge guide).
Lets see ... 2 x 10,000 = ... um ... someone help me out.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both have
excellent information. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.

The read westom's sources. There are none.

--
bud--

On Mar 6, 11:50 am, "
wrote:
It certainly may, but I would not count on it being 100%
effective and would not be surprised if there
were somedamageto AC appliances by a massive
direct lightning hit to a house.

The poster asked about parameters that make a protector effective.
Protection is always and only about where those hundreds of thousands
of joules dissipate. Always. Joules that a protector can absorb are
not a relevant parameter. Important is its current rating. To remain
functional even after a direct lightning strike.

We routinely suffered direct lightning strikes without damage to
anything. We properly installed what absorbs hundreds of thousands of
joules. And connect a protector low impedance (ie 'less than 10
feet') to that solution. Sorry that reality, micky's question and
RBM's answer makes you so angry. That anger also does not answer
relevant questions.

A request was for relevant parameters. A typical lightning strike
is 20,000 amps. A minimally sized 'whole house' protector starts at
50,000 amps. Direct lightning strikes must not even damage a
protector. Or a timer switch. Current in amperes is important for a
protector and for connections to what must absorb that energy. Single
point earth ground. Useful answers always discuss where energy
dissipates. And what is necessary to also protect an electronic timer
switch.

micky - even bud's citation says what makes any protector effective
AND what is most critical to making a 'whole house' protector useful:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector
will work by diverting the surges to ground. The best surge
protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done
properly.

Motorola's R-56 Standard says same:
Any ground length over five feet from equipment to ground rod is
almost useless for protection from a close lightning strike. It is
fine for an electrical safety ground, but too much voltage will be
imposed on the equipment for the equipment to survive from
a close strike.

Protecting an electronic timer switch means a properly earthed
'whole house' protector. Protectors, without a short connection to
what absorbs energy, are routinely called "useless".

On Mar 6, 6:31*pm, westom wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:50 am, "
wrote:

It certainly may, but I would not count on it being 100%
effective and would not be surprised if there
were somedamageto AC appliances by a massive
direct lightning hit to a house.

*The poster asked about parameters that make a protector effective.

Actually, the poster didn't ask that at all.


Protection is always and only about where those hundreds of thousands
of joules dissipate. *Always. *Joules that a protector can absorb are
not a relevant parameter. *Important is its current rating. To remain
functional even after a direct lightning strike.

Of course how many joules a protector can withstand
is relevant. If protector A can take 3X the energy in
joules of protector B, than it will potentially survive surges
that A cannot. I could design a surge protector that
will survive your 50,000 amp requirement at 500 volts
for 100 nano seconds. It will however have a very low
joule rating of 2.5 joules because the time duration is
ridiculously short. On the other hand, I could design
a 20,000 amp one that will handle those amps
for 10 microseconds, which would be 100 joules.
Which one would you rather have? In reality the specs
tend to track each other. A surge protector with a
higher amp rating will tend to have a higher joule
rating as well. But you can't dismiss either amps
or joules as meaningless.

As a side note, let's not go down the "absorb" strawman
that you so cherish. We all know that almost all
the energy is flowing to ground. The above energy
rating in joules is what gets dissipated in the surge protector
because it is not a perfect conductor and hence has
a finite resistance.




* We routinely suffered direct lightning strikes without damage to
anything. *We properly installed what absorbs hundreds of thousands of
joules. *And connect a protector low impedance (ie 'less than 10
feet') to that solution. *Sorry that reality, micky's question and
RBM's answer makes you so angry. That anger also does not answer
relevant questions.

Neither the question nor RBM's answer made me angry.



* *A request was for relevant parameters.
*A typical lightning strike
is 20,000 amps.

And as Bud has explained to you 50 times now over
many years, that 20,000 amps from a direct stike
has virtually no chance of getting to the
surge protector because with the voltages present
arcing will occur to ground before it ever reaches the surge
protector. Only some of that current will reach the
surge protector. Do you know of any insulator, for
example, in a masthead that can withstand the
voltages of a lightning strike? What are the spacings
of terminals in a service entrance and at what voltage
do they just arc over instead of merrily following the
conductor to the surge surpressor?



*A minimally sized 'whole house' protector starts at
50,000 amps.

Tell that to the companies on your list of surge
protector manufacturers. They make surge protectors
rated at less than that. For example, I recently
installed an Intermatic rated at 20,000. Intermatic
must be a schlock company.


Direct lightning strikes must not even damage a
protector.

Yawn.....


Or a timer switch. *Current in amperes is important for a
protector and for connections to what must absorb that energy. *Single
point earth ground. *Useful answers always discuss where energy
dissipates. *And what is necessary to also protect an electronic timer
switch.

* micky - even bud's citation says what makes any protector effective
AND what is most critical to making a 'whole house' protector useful:

A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector
will work by diverting the surges to ground. *The best surge
protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done
properly.

* Motorola's R-56 Standard says same:

Any ground length over five feet from equipment to ground rod is
almost useless for protection from a close lightning strike. *It is
fine for an electrical safety ground, but too much voltage will be
imposed on the equipment for the equipment to survive from
a close strike.

* Protecting an electronic timer switch means a properly earthed
'whole house' protector. *Protectors, without a short connection to
what absorbs energy, are routinely called "useless".

I'm still waiting for that link to the 50,000 amp surge protector
at HD and Lowes for under $50. Being such an expert on
surge protectors, you should have it at your finger tips.....

On 3/6/2012 5:31 PM, westom wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:50 am,
wrote:
It certainly may, but I would not count on it being 100%
effective and would not be surprised if there
were some damage to AC appliances by a massive
direct lightning hit to a house.

Direct lightning strikes to a house certainly requires lightning rods
for protection. Westom could use language that says what he intended by
"direct lightning strikes".


Sorry that reality, micky's question and
RBM's answer makes you so angry.

Westom has problems with hallucinations.
I agree with trader.


A request was for relevant parameters. A typical lightning strike
is 20,000 amps. A minimally sized 'whole house' protector starts at
50,000 amps.

The IEEE surge guide starts at 20kA. It depends on what the risk is.

One of the plug-in protectors I am using has 3 MOVs each rated 590J,
30,000A. That is 90,000 surge amps total, and higher than westom's 50,000A.

There is no possibility of getting anything anywhere near that on a
branch circuit. The high surge amp rating just goes with the high joule
rating. That means it will have a very long life. I don't expect it will
ever fail. (That is one reason why some manufacturers can have
protected equipment warranties.)

I am waiting, with trader, for a link to a 50,000A surge protector at HD
and Lowes for under $50. I have been waiting for years.


micky - even bud's citation says what makes any protector effective
AND what is most critical to making a 'whole house' protector useful:

What does the NIST surge guide really say about plug-in protectors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.

Westom's blinders block anything that does not agree with his limited
view of protection.


Protecting an electronic timer switch means a properly earthed
'whole house' protector.

Since the timer connects only to power wires it is very likely a service
panel protector will protect it.

A service panel protector does not necessarily protect equipment
connected to both power and phone/cable/... wiring. A service panel
protector does not limit the voltage between power and signal wires,
which the NIST surge guide suggests is the major cause of equipment failure.

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

Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors are
NOT effective. There are none.

--
bud--

On Mar 7, 11:41 am, bud-- wrote:
Westom has problems with hallucinations.

Bud will post insults to protect his income. He does this for almost a
decade. His job is to promote protectors that are profit centers. He
is paid to be posting here.

If Bud's protector did anything useful, then bud could post spec
numbers that claim that protection. He cannot. No such specification
numbers exist. For almost a decade, bud has been challenged to post
those spec numbers. He never once did. Instead he routinely posts
personal attacks in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh.

What good is a plug-in protector for an electronic timer switch in
the wall? Useless. He does not sell products to provide that
protection. He is only here because realities of his scam products
must not be learned. His products even create fires if a 'whole
house' protector is not properly earthed.

His citations describe the many completely different types of
protectors. Then discusses why protectors adjacent to electronics are
"useless".
A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will
work by diverting the surges to ground. The best surge protection in
the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Useless as in a missing low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot')
connection to earth.

Page 42 figure 8 shows his products earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV. Why? Because the protector is
too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. It can make
appliance damage easier. Page 42 figure 8 from the IEEE.

Plug-in protectors without a 'whole house' protector mean virtually
no protection. If you learn that, then bud's income is harmed. So
nasty bud will post insults here repeatedly. It is his job. As a
sales promoter, he will even deny he is paid to post myths and lies.

Meanwhile, an informed homeowner earths one 'whole house' protector
rated at least 50,000 amps to protect everything including that
electronic timer switch. As both the NIST and IEEE note in bud's
citations, one 'whole house' protector is the well prove solution. It
costs less money. Superior solutions need not pay for nasty sales
promoters such as bud.

Informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector, rated at least
50,000 amps, so that electronic timer switches are protected. That is
the only solution for in-wall timer switches. If your electrician is
so ill informed as to install a grossly undersized 20,000 amp 'whole
house' protector, then find an electrically informed electrician.

On 3/7/2012 11:08 AM, westom wrote:

Bud will post insults to protect his income. He does this for almost a
decade. His job is to promote protectors that are profit centers. He
is paid to be posting here.

1. If westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie. The
only association I have with the surge protection industry is I am
using some protectors.

2. Westom is insulted by the IEEE and NIST. That is where most of the
information I post comes from.

3. I didn't first see westom anywhere near 10 years ago.

4. I am a regular participant in this newsgroup. Westom showed up
because micky said the magic word - "surge".

5. Westom has been posting this crap for 10 years?


If Bud's protector did anything useful, then bud could post spec
numbers that claim that protection. He cannot. No such specification
numbers exist.

It is one of westom's favorite lies.

If westom had half a brain he could find specs. A 10 year old could find
specs.

I have posted specs many times. Other people have posted specs. They are
always ignored by westom.

I posted specs in this thread which westom ignored, as always.


What good is a plug-in protector for an electronic timer switch in
the wall? Useless.

Before westom showed up almost all the discussion was about service
panel protectors. I said a service panel protector would protect the
timer and provided recommended ratings from the IEEE.

But westom had to insert his favorite belief that plug-in protectors do
not work.

His products even create fires if a 'whole
house' protector is not properly earthed.

1. They are not my products.

2. " 'Whole house' protector is not properly earthed"?

3. Since 1998 UL has required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs.
But with no valid technical arguments westom all westom has are scare
tactics.


His citations describe the many completely different types of
protectors. Then discusses why protectors adjacent to electronics are
"useless".

Repeating what the NIST surge guide really says about plug-in protectors:
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in protector.

And the guides take a lot of space to "describe the many completely
different types of protectors" that don't work?


Page 42 figure 8 shows his products earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV.

If poor westom had half a brain he could figure out what IEEE guide
says in this example of how plug-in protectors work:

- A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service
that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO
protection.

It is simply a lie that the plug-in protector in the IEEE example
damages the second TV.


Plug-in protectors without a 'whole house' protector mean virtually
no protection.

Drugs can control your delusions. Consult your doctor.


Meanwhile, an informed homeowner earths one 'whole house' protector
rated at least 50,000 amps to protect everything including that
electronic timer switch.

Repeating from the NIST surge guide:
A service panel protector is a real good idea.
But what does the NIST surge guide say?
"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."

If your electrician is
so ill informed as to install a grossly undersized 20,000 amp 'whole
house' protector, then find an electrically informed electrician.

The 20kA figure comes from a range of values in the IEEE surge guide. Of
course westom is much smarter than the IEEE.

Westom says plug-in protectors do not work.

Simple questions westom has never answered:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why do westom's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in protectors?
- Why does "responsible manufacturer" SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[protectors] at the point of use"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent
information. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.

--
bud--

On Mar 7, 12:08*pm, westom wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:41 am, bud-- wrote:

Westom has problems with hallucinations.

Bud will post insults to protect his income. He does this for almost a
decade. *His job is to promote protectors that are profit centers. *He
is paid to be posting here.

Good example of the hallucinations. We've all seen Bud
posting here for years on all kinds of topics with excellent
information and credibility. You on the other hand magically
appear only when a post happens to contain the words
"surge protector" to begin your rant.





* If Bud's protector did anything useful, then bud could post spec
numbers that claim that protection. *He cannot. *No such specification
numbers exist. For almost a decade, bud has been challenged to post
those spec numbers. *He never once did. Instead he routinely posts
personal attacks in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh.

A - Bud doesn't make or sell protectors.

B - There are scores of surge protector data sheets online with
specs which anyone who wants to look can find.

C - Rush has nothing to do with this.




* What good is a plug-in protector for an electronic timer switch in
the wall? *Useless.

Another strawman or hallucination. Neither Bud nor anyone else
here suggested using a plug-in to protect an electronic timer
switch that is mounted in the wall. In fact, Bud specifically said
a whole house protector would protect that wall timer.



*He does not sell products to provide that
protection. *He is only here because realities of his scam products
must not be learned. *His products even create fires if a 'whole
house' protector is not properly earthed.

Definitely hallucinations.




* His citations describe the many completely different types of
protectors. *Then discusses why protectors adjacent to electronics are
"useless".

I've read the IEEE recommendations cited and they recommend
using plug-in surge protectors as part of a protection strategy.
The real question is, where are YOUR citations?




A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will
work by diverting the surges to ground. *The best surge protection in
the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.

* Useless as in a missing low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot')
connection to earth.

* Page 42 figure 8 shows his products earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV. *Why? *Because the protector is
too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. *It can make
appliance damage easier. *Page 42 figure 8 from the IEEE.

Oh, finally a citation, except that it's a total lie.
That diagram shows two TVs. TV1 uses a plug-in
surge protector through which the AC and cable lines pass.
It is protected and undamaged by the surge. The TV that
is damaged is the other one that has NO plug-in surge
protector. The IEEE states:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to
protect TV2."







* Plug-in protectors without a 'whole house' protector mean virtually
no protection. * If you learn that, then bud's income is harmed. *So
nasty bud will post insults here repeatedly. *It is his job. *As a
sales promoter, he will even deny he is paid to post myths and lies.

I call BS on you and everyone who has seen me post
here over the years knows that like Bud, I'm not selling anything
either.




* Meanwhile, an informed homeowner earths one 'whole house' protector
rated at least 50,000 amps to protect everything including that
electronic timer switch. *As both the NIST and IEEE note in bud's
citations, one 'whole house' protector is the well prove solution. *It
costs less money. *Superior solutions need not pay for nasty sales
promoters such as bud.

* Informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector, rated at least
50,000 amps, so that electronic timer switches are protected. That is
the only solution for in-wall timer switches. *If your electrician is
so ill informed as to install a grossly undersized 20,000 amp 'whole
house' protector, then find an electrically informed electrician.


Better take that up with the folks on your list of
"responsible surge protector manufacturers". I just
installed an Intermatic that's rated at 20,000 amps.
I sleep well at night and so does Intermatic.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:37:25 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 3/7/2012 11:08 AM, westom wrote:

Bud will post insults to protect his income. He does this for almost a
decade. His job is to promote protectors that are profit centers. He
is paid to be posting here.

1. If westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie. The
only association I have with the surge protection industry is I am
using some protectors.

2. Westom is insulted by the IEEE and NIST. That is where most of the
information I post comes from.

3. I didn't first see westom anywhere near 10 years ago.

You probably did (I have for at *least* that long). He used to post under the
nym (w_tom).

4. I am a regular participant in this newsgroup. Westom showed up
because micky said the magic word - "surge".

Yep. He does a web search for "surge suppressor" and pounces on any such
mutterings.

5. Westom has been posting this crap for 10 years?

More than.

If Bud's protector did anything useful, then bud could post spec
numbers that claim that protection. He cannot. No such specification
numbers exist.

It is one of westom's favorite lies.

Key words: one of

If westom had half a brain he could find specs. A 10 year old could find
specs.

He can't, unsurprisingly.

I have posted specs many times. Other people have posted specs. They are
always ignored by westom.

I posted specs in this thread which westom ignored, as always.


What good is a plug-in protector for an electronic timer switch in
the wall? Useless.

Before westom showed up almost all the discussion was about service
panel protectors. I said a service panel protector would protect the
timer and provided recommended ratings from the IEEE.

But westom had to insert his favorite belief that plug-in protectors do
not work.

Which, of course, is a lie.

Give it up and killfile little 'w'.

...

On 3/7/2012 1:31 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:37:25 -0600, wrote:

On 3/7/2012 11:08 AM, westom wrote:

3. I didn't first see westom anywhere near 10 years ago.

You probably did (I have for at *least* that long). He used to post under the
nym (w_tom).

Yea - I certainly remember w_tom.

I remember one of the first times I saw w_tom. It was at
alt.engineering.electrical. I know the date of the thread - it was
nowhere near 10 years ago.

I learned a lot about surge protection since that thread. Westom is way
further off than I thought then.


4. I am a regular participant in this newsgroup. Westom showed up
because micky said the magic word - "surge".

Yep. He does a web search for "surge suppressor" and pounces on any such
mutterings.

Googling for ["westom" surge] returns 20,000 hits. There will be more
under w_tom. And probably more under google groups that are not in a
google search.

Mormon missionaries are not that nuts.


5. Westom has been posting this crap for 10 years?

More than.

If Bud's protector did anything useful, then bud could post spec
numbers that claim that protection. He cannot. No such specification
numbers exist.

It is one of westom's favorite lies.

Key words: one of

If westom had half a brain he could find specs. A 10 year old could find
specs.

He can't, unsurprisingly.

I think that is right. It is like he has mental blinders that severely
limit what he sees. He looks at the surge guides and only see what
reinforces his beliefs. Some of what he sees is not actually there.


I have posted specs many times. Other people have posted specs. They are
always ignored by westom.

I posted specs in this thread which westom ignored, as always.


What good is a plug-in protector for an electronic timer switch in
the wall? Useless.

Before westom showed up almost all the discussion was about service
panel protectors. I said a service panel protector would protect the
timer and provided recommended ratings from the IEEE.

But westom had to insert his favorite belief that plug-in protectors do
not work.

Which, of course, is a lie.

Give it up and killfile little 'w'.

That leaves his techno-babble to sucker unsuspecting victims. Who would
expect there is an internet nut spreading blatantly false information
about surge protection.

Besides, it is like pulling the wings off a butterfly.

--
bud--