bud-- wrote:


And one of first times I saw westom's drivel was at
alt.engineering.electrical, where westom misconstrued the views of
Arshad Mansoor who was a Martzlof coauthor, and provoked a response from
an electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in
protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."

I've got to think this is westom's hobby. He has been showing up in blogs,
newsgroups, and forums for at least 15 years anytime surge protection comes up.
No one has ever succeeded in changing his party line.

Arguing with him is a waste of time. The only upside I see is keeping someone
from believing him, assuming they can understand his sentence structure.

-- Doug

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 9:00:53 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Inquiring minds want to know, how is it that here you have
no problem with a surge protector protecting an AC unit?
How can that be? You've argued over and over again, that
without a short, direct connection to earth ground, protection
is impossible. An AC unit doesn't have it's own, short, direct
connection to earth ground. It's grounded back through the
panel, just like a TV or computer would be.

As stated previously, you don't read what is posted. You have assumed using myths taught by advertising and hearsay. Those rumors advocate earthing at the appliance.

I never said earth an AC. Earth the surge. Then a surge need not find earth ground destructively via an AC.

Same solution exists in virtually every telephone switching center. Then direct strikes to telephone or other incoming wires do not damage that $multimillion computer. Same solution exists in munitions dumps. Then direct strikes do not cause explosions.

Ufer grounds for protection from direct lightning strikes were pioneered and proven in munitions dumps. Another example of protection by earthing the surge. (They do not earth the ammo for the same reason we do not earth an AC.)

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:33:32 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 9:00:53 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Inquiring minds want to know, how is it that here you have

no problem with a surge protector protecting an AC unit?

How can that be? You've argued over and over again, that

without a short, direct connection to earth ground, protection

is impossible. An AC unit doesn't have it's own, short, direct

connection to earth ground. It's grounded back through the

panel, just like a TV or computer would be.



As stated previously, you don't read what is posted. You have assumed using myths taught by advertising and hearsay. Those rumors advocate earthing at the appliance.



No, what I follow is consistent with NIST, IEEE. The links have
been provided.



I never said earth an AC. Earth the surge. Then a surge need not find earth ground destructively via an AC.



And I never claimed that you said to earth an AC unit. You said
no surge protection is possible without a short, direct connection
to earth ground. The AC unit has no such earth ground. Yet, you
posted that having surge protection on the AC unit is OK. So, the
question, still unanswered, is how do you resolve those contradictory
positions? Of course it's impossible, so we still have no answer.





Same solution exists in virtually every telephone switching center. Then direct strikes to telephone or other incoming wires do not damage that $multimillion computer. Same solution exists in munitions dumps. Then direct strikes do not cause explosions.

Same solution as what exactly? Telco installations rely on a
tiered protection strategy, just like the IEEE recommends for homes.
I've explained to you many times that telephone CO's and similar
do not just rely solely on surge protection at the incoming wires
where they enter the building. They
also have surge protection on the line cards at the switch which is
inside the facility. A tiered strategy. And even you apparently recognize
this because you say a surge protector at an AC unit outside a house is OK.
Yet because of your religious beliefs against plug-in surge protectors,
you refuse to acknowledge that they work under exactly the same limitations
that the AC unit surge protector, or the surge protection on the Telco
line cards have, ie no direct earth ground.





Ufer grounds for protection from direct lightning strikes were pioneered and proven in munitions dumps. Another example of protection by earthing the surge. (They do not earth the ammo for the same reason we do not earth an AC.)

Which of course says nothing about the effectiveness of plug-in surge
protectors or those at an AC unit.

Still waiting for an answer:

How can the surge protector added to an AC unit be effective,
but a plug-in to protect a TV can't work? You claim that without
a short, direct connection to earth, surge protection is impossible.
So, how can a surge protector on an AC unit work, while one on a TV
be useless, when neither have an earth ground?

How can surge protection inside an appliance, which you acknowledge
exists and is effective, work? It has no earth ground.

How can airliner avionics survive a lightning hit and surges
induced by it, without an earth ground?

westom wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 9:00:53 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Inquiring minds want to know, how is it that here you have
no problem with a surge protector protecting an AC unit?
How can that be? You've argued over and over again, that
without a short, direct connection to earth ground, protection
is impossible. An AC unit doesn't have it's own, short, direct
connection to earth ground. It's grounded back through the
panel, just like a TV or computer would be.

As stated previously, you don't read what is posted. You have assumed using myths taught by advertising and hearsay. Those rumors advocate earthing at the appliance.

I never said earth an AC. Earth the surge. Then a surge need not find earth ground destructively via an AC.

Same solution exists in virtually every telephone switching center. Then direct strikes to telephone or other incoming wires do not damage that $multimillion computer. Same solution exists in munitions dumps. Then direct strikes do not cause explosions.

Ufer grounds for protection from direct lightning strikes were pioneered and proven in munitions dumps. Another example of protection by earthing the surge. (They do not earth the ammo for the same reason we do not earth an AC.)

Hi,
No matter what there is no 100% protection when direct hit occurs. I
personally experienced that when I was EIC at a local university
computer science dept. system. (Huge Multics system, how huge? operators
running around in the computer room on roller blades) Mass storage
sub-system pretty well got wiped out needing total system restore taking
days around the clock. Simply huge energy with strike always looks for
shortest path to dissipate it wherever it may be. How
you test good earth? Try to light a bulb using your earth terminal and
hot lead from the power line. Is the bulb at full brightness?

It is not unusual when you measure the earth buss between two point
along it there is voltage differential.

On 9/14/2013 9:26 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
wrote:


And one of first times I saw westom's drivel was at
alt.engineering.electrical, where westom misconstrued the views of
Arshad Mansoor who was a Martzlof coauthor, and provoked a response from
an electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in
protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."

I've got to think this is westom's hobby. He has been showing up in blogs,
newsgroups, and forums for at least 15 years anytime surge protection comes up.
No one has ever succeeded in changing his party line.

I think it is more than a party line and hobby. More like a religious
crusade. You can't change his party line because it is religious beliefs
that are immune from challenge.

He has actually had even stupider beliefs that he posted all over, but
not like the surge drivel.


Arguing with him is a waste of time. The only upside I see is keeping someone
from believing him, assuming they can understand his sentence structure.


I agree with that. Who would expect someone would compulsively post
misinformation all over the internet. People can stumble across his
nonsense with google searches for "surge". But I would add that I put
out some information that is not well known.