On Tue, 24 May 2016 19:53:34 -0400, Fred wrote:

On 5/24/2016 12:40 PM, wrote:
I would be curious which utility lets an unqualified meter reader cut
a seal and open a meter can myself. I bet the IBEW would be interested
too.

I watched the power company tech (an illegal mexican, I suspect) install a smart meter and never bothered to check if the meter base connections
were tight. I always thought they inspected connections when they swapped meters.

Not wanting a fire, I hired a licensed electrician (a legal black guy) to check and replace the meter base lugs.

The smart meter swap out was done by contractors and they did not
really want them touching the hot conductors or meter jaws.. This is
not the same as installing equipment like the surge protectors in the
meter can.

On 5/24/2016 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 19:53:34 -0400, Fred wrote:

On 5/24/2016 12:40 PM, wrote:
I would be curious which utility lets an unqualified meter reader cut
a seal and open a meter can myself. I bet the IBEW would be interested
too.

I watched the power company tech (an illegal mexican, I suspect) install a smart meter and never bothered to check if the meter base connections
were tight. I always thought they inspected connections when they swapped meters.

Not wanting a fire, I hired a licensed electrician (a legal black guy) to check and replace the meter base lugs.

The smart meter swap out was done by contractors and they did not
really want them touching the hot conductors or meter jaws.. This is
not the same as installing equipment like the surge protectors in the
meter can.


The poco should train meter installers to do a proper safety inspection. It ain't rocket surgery. Good grief!

On Tue, 24 May 2016 20:37:48 -0400, Fred wrote:

On 5/24/2016 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2016 19:53:34 -0400, Fred wrote:

On 5/24/2016 12:40 PM, wrote:
I would be curious which utility lets an unqualified meter reader cut
a seal and open a meter can myself. I bet the IBEW would be interested
too.

I watched the power company tech (an illegal mexican, I suspect) install a smart meter and never bothered to check if the meter base connections
were tight. I always thought they inspected connections when they swapped meters.

Not wanting a fire, I hired a licensed electrician (a legal black guy) to check and replace the meter base lugs.

The smart meter swap out was done by contractors and they did not
really want them touching the hot conductors or meter jaws.. This is
not the same as installing equipment like the surge protectors in the
meter can.


The poco should train meter installers to do a proper safety inspection. It ain't rocket surgery. Good grief!

I am not sure what kind of training they got but the guy doing them in
our neighborhood was standing as far away as he could get, with no PPE
and just jamming them in ... hot. It certainly did not look like any
kind of safe, NESC compliant, procedure to me. I offered to trip the
main and he said, "Don't bother". I assume they get paid by the meter
and he was doing them about as fast as humanly possible. It took him
longer to walk back and forth from the truck than he spent replacing
it.

I have repaired electronic equiptement my entire adult life. I am 59.

turned my tv on one night and must of jumped a foot, lightning hit close by.

the tv was dead. found the bridge rectifier, had blown, it actually had exploded.

hada copier that acted up after storms. added a big MOV and had no more issues.

one day my mom had lightning strike her neighbors tree, killed the tree.

killed my moms garage door opener. i replaced the main board on the nearly brand new garage door opener.

lightning is screwey, it wipes out some things and leaves others untouched.

manufacturers of everything should have to pass a power line damage resistance test.

cheapening of everythng causes endless troubles

On 5/24/2016 9:35 AM, westom wrote:
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 10:46:42 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
To pass UL1449 a plug-in protector must pass a series of 20 test surges
and remain functional. At the end of the last surge the let-through
voltage is measured and rounded up to one of the standard UL values
(often 330V).

During later tests, like long overvoltage, a protector can fail, but it
must fail safely.

Those first tests are near zero tests that any near zero protector can survive.

The village idiot ignores the amount of energy that can make it to a
plug-in protector:
"And the amount of energy that can make it to a plug-in protector over a
branch circuit is surprisingly low. A surge expert at the NIST
investigated how much energy can reach the MOVs. Branch circuits were
10m and longer, and surges coming in on power wires were up to 10,000A.
The maximum energy was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases
it was 1 joule or less. Plug-in protectors with much higher ratings are
readily available."

The village idiot doesn't say that is wrong. He just ignores it. Just
like he ignores everything that conflicts with his simple minded (and
wrong) beliefs about surge protection.

But lying is his mantra. It is what he is paid to do.

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

And if the village idiot had valid technical arguments he would use
them. I have debunked his arguments. My "lies" come from experts and
researchers in the surge protection field. The village idiot does not
disagree with them, he just ignores them.

Among the facts westom does not disagree with:
- The only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge guide use
plug-in protectors
- The NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest solution"
- The NIST surge guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- The NIST surge guide say "Plug-in...The easiest of all for anyone to
do. The only question is 'Which to choose'"
- westom's "companies with integrity" make plug-in protectors
- "Integrity" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need
additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of
use"
- The IEEE surge guide explain how plug-in protectors work - and it is
not primarily by earthing
- The investigation by surge expert find only 35 joules (and usually far
less) at a plug-in protector when the surge was the maximum that will occur

Still never seen - a reliable source that agrees with westom's belief
that plug-in protectors do not work.
Choose between the IEEE and NIST or westom. One of them is wrong.

Both the IEEE and NIST surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:59:47 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
Both the IEEE and NIST surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

He is paid to promote plug-in protectors. He forgets to mention that responsible sources only recommend plug-in protectors when used in conjunction with what makes hundreds of thousands of joules irrelevant. If not protected by a 'whole house' protector, then plug-in protectors can and have even created house fires. Even with a UL Listing. Plug-in devices supplement what does effective protection: a proper earthing and a 'whole house' protector.

Spend $1 per protected appliance for 99.5% to 99.9% of the protection. Then enrich Bud by spending $20 or $85 per every appliance for an additional 0..2% protection.

He will post insults because he fears you might learn reality. He even lies about who he works for.

Integrity is provided by other manufacturers of responsible and effective protectors. These provide numbers for protection from direct lightning strikes (ie 50,000 amps). They need not post demeaning attacks to promote their product. Near zero protectors are promoted by one whose income is based in lies or by promoting half truths.

An informed homeowner starts by earthing a 'whole house' protector on a low impedance (ie less than 10 foot) connection. Then protection already inside every appliance should not be overwhelmed.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
lightning is screwey, it wipes out some things and leaves others untouched.

Lightning is not capricious. If all but invited inside, then lightning will hunt for a destructive connection to earth via appliances. It was incoming to everything. It found a best and destructive outgoing path only via a TV. In your mom's case, it found a best and outgoing path destructively via a garage door opener.

Both an incoming and outgoing path must exist to have damage.

Because it found a best path to earth destructively via that one appliance, then it need not blow through (overwhelm) protection in other appliances.

If a surge current is earthed BEFORE entering, then it need not hunt for earth via any appliance.

A surge would be incoming to everything. Only one (or some) item also made a best outgoing path to earth. If that path is not a properly earthed protector (ie rated at least 50,000 amps), then lightning finds a path, destructively, via some appliance. Protection (even 100 years ago) was always about earthing BEFORE a surge enters a building. It is not capricious. It locates a best connection to earth harmlessly via a 'whole house' protector or destructively via an appliance. Often only one or two appliances is damaged by a surge that is incoming to everything.

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:54:44 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
lightning is screwey, it wipes out some things and leaves others untouched.

Lightning is not capricious.

Nuff said.

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:40:55 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:59:47 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
Both the IEEE and NIST surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

He is paid to promote plug-in protectors. He forgets to mention that responsible sources only recommend plug-in protectors when used in conjunction with what makes hundreds of thousands of joules irrelevant. If not protected by a 'whole house' protector, then plug-in protectors can and have even created house fires. Even with a UL Listing. Plug-in devices supplement what does effective protection: a proper earthing and a 'whole house' protector.


It's not true that the guides only recommend plug-ins together with a
whole house surge protector. Folks can read it and s


Spend $1 per protected appliance for 99.5% to 99.9% of the protection. Then enrich Bud by spending $20 or $85 per every appliance for an additional 0.2% protection.


More bad math. House might have what? 30 appliances. So, I can get a
whole house surge protector installed for $30? And remember you told us
that the typical grounding systems one finds, eg using a utility cold
water or well pipe as a ground is totally inadequate. You said we needed
to have a ground in the foundation, run through the foundation wall??, etc.
Where does one get all that for $30? Just a sanity check on the soundness
of what you post.



He will post insults because he fears you might learn reality. He even lies about who he works for.

Integrity is provided by other manufacturers of responsible and effective protectors. These provide numbers for protection from direct lightning strikes (ie 50,000 amps). They need not post demeaning attacks to promote their product. Near zero protectors are promoted by one whose income is based in lies or by promoting half truths.


Yes and many of those responsible and effective protector manufacturers
also sell plug-ins. Go figure.


An informed homeowner starts by earthing a 'whole house' protector on a low impedance (ie less than 10 foot) connection. Then protection already inside every appliance should not be overwhelmed.

Still waiting for W Tom to describe how that protection inside every
appliance works. Of course he can't because the rest of us here, anyone
who's opened up any typical electronics powered by AC knows that they
typically use MOVs. Yet somehow bigger MOVs inside a plug-in, according
to W Tom can't work. Go figure.

On Mon, 30 May 2016 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:54:44 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
lightning is screwey, it wipes out some things and leaves others untouched.

Lightning is not capricious.

Nuff said.

Lightning is arbitrary and capricious.

On Mon, 30 May 2016 08:40:50 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

He even lies about who he works for.

I bet by now you have a direct citation to support your position.

Next you will say people pick on you.

On Fri, 20 May 2016 00:06:22 +0100, Jesse wrote:

On 5/19/2016 5:10 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:28:49 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:
trader_4 posted for all of us...


Below grade is obviously safer, it can't get a direct hit from lightning
like overhead wired going to a house.

Tell that to my neighbor...

--
Tekkie
Tell us more. Where and how did this direct hit to an underground
service take place?


http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/03/...ine-in-oswego/

8 hours to turn off a gas supply?!?

--
A group of cowboys were branding some cattle.
While they were out the cook saw a sheep tied to a post. Thinking it was for that nights dinner he cooked it.
That night after dinner the cowboys were all sulking and ignoring the cook. He pulled one aside and asked, "Did I screw up the cooking?"
"No", the cowboy replied, "You cooked up the screwing."

On Fri, 20 May 2016 01:51:03 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2016 14:10:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:28:49 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:
trader_4 posted for all of us...


Below grade is obviously safer, it can't get a direct hit from lightning
like overhead wired going to a house.


Tell that to my neighbor...

--
Tekkie

Tell us more. Where and how did this direct hit to an underground
service take place?

The lightning lab at UCF in conjunction with Florida Power and Light
have done a lot testing with lightning and they have some great
Fulgurites that showed lightning penetrating 2 meters or more
underground. Safer underground? certainly but if it is a wide open
spot with nothing but sand for it to hit, that cable down there 4 or 5
feet may be pretty attractive to a bolt.

BTW in my inspecting career, the most robust lightning protection I
have ever seen in a building is for a toll booth at MM99 on I-75. It
is the only decent target for miles around, The array was more than
they put in the ground for the radio towers that are along the
highway.

But if it got hit there's just some toll booth worker to get hit.

--
When Mike got arrested, the police told him, "Anything you say will be held against you."
Mike smiled and simply replied, "Jessica Simpson's boobs."

On Thu, 19 May 2016 15:10:14 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:33:13 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 5/18/2016 7:56 PM, Steve Stone wrote:
A friend with a new state of the art super high tech electronic dash computer
controlled washer claims it is best to power the beast thru a surge suppressor.

Was wondering if the learned members of this group thought this was a good idea
or a not so good idea.

That depends on what you think you'll be protecting against,
whether your utilities are overhead or below grade, where the
nearest step-down Xformer is for your little feed (usually,
~4 homes in a cluster).

It also depends on the quality of surge protector you install.

Many are just "surge protectors" in name, only.

And why did you start a whole new thread?

Did he?

--
Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up every two hours?

On Thu, 19 May 2016 09:24:11 +0100, Roscoe wrote:

On 05/18/2016 08:56 PM, Steve Stone wrote:
A friend with a new state of the art super high tech electronic dash computer controlled washer claims it is best to power the beast thru a surge suppressor.

Was wondering if the learned members of this group thought this was a good idea or a not so good idea.

Steve


Anything you do to minimize voltage spikes on your power line is a good thing...just keep in mind that the typical surge suppression device needs a good path to ground to function properly.

FWIW, most homes don't have a good ground system. You'll typically find the outdoor connection from the #6 ground wire to the ground rod is loose and/or corroded.

I have no ground rod. The grounding is done at the transformer (substation).

--
Have you heard of the untimely passing of the Energizer Bunny?
Someone put his batteries in backwards and he just kept coming and coming and coming . . .

On Thu, 19 May 2016 20:40:41 +0100, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/19/2016 2:19 PM, philo wrote:
On 05/19/2016 07:55 AM, wrote:
philo: "MOV"?



http://www.howtogeek.com/212375/why-...rge-protector/


Few years ago I had several surge protectors get fried by a voltage
surge when a tree fell dropping the high tension wire on the low one.
Only item I lost was a microwave without a surge protector. Many years
ago we had lost a couple of unprotected TV sets now all electron stuff
in my house is protected. Also have usb's on all computers.

I've seen surge protectors (plug in ones) melt in an office. The computers without one popped their PSU's bulk caps.
The cause of this? Some workmen doing re-wiring confused the old UK with the new EU wiring colours and put two phases across a one phase outlet circuit.
A large insurance claim was made, then I replaced all the bulk capacitors at 50p each :-)

--
How does a man know when his wife is losing interest?
When her favorite sexual position is next door.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 21:25:54 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2016 15:40:41 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 5/19/2016 2:19 PM, philo wrote:
On 05/19/2016 07:55 AM, wrote:
philo: "MOV"?



http://www.howtogeek.com/212375/why-...rge-protector/


Few years ago I had several surge protectors get fried by a voltage
surge when a tree fell dropping the high tension wire on the low one.
Only item I lost was a microwave without a surge protector. Many years
ago we had lost a couple of unprotected TV sets now all electron stuff
in my house is protected. Also have usb's on all computers.
UPS's??

Is the computer owned by the UPS?

--
In 1999 the creators of KY Jelly created a new product. It was called "Y2K Jelly." It allowed you to get four digits in your date instead of two.

On 5/30/2016 9:40 AM, westom wrote:
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:59:47 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
Both the IEEE and NIST surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

He is paid to promote plug-in protectors.

westom is beyond stupid.

He forgets to mention that responsible sources only recommend plug-in protectors when used in conjunction with what makes hundreds of thousands of joules irrelevant. If not protected by a 'whole house' protector,

Cite.
It is one of westom's hallucinations.

But:
"SquareD makes service panel protectors. Last time I looked SquareD said
for their 'best' service panel protector 'electronic equipment may need
additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of
use.'
For the next best protector, SquareD said the connected equipment
warranty $ does not include 'electronic devices such as: microwave
ovens, audio and stereo components, video equipment, televisions, and
computers.' "

And from the NIST surge guide:
"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."

then plug-in protectors can and have even created house fires.

"Where is the record of fires westom claims?"
One of the questions westom never answers.


Spend $1 per protected appliance

westom includes light bulbs as appliances.

for 99.5% to 99.9% of the protection.

The lie repeated.
"The 99+% figures are from the 'IEEE 'Green' Book: IEEE Recommended
practice for grounding of industrial and commercial power systems'. They
are for lightning rods. They have nothing to do with surge protectors."


He will post insults because he fears you might learn reality.

westom is insulted by reality.

I post reality - from the IEEE and NIST and the NIST expert who has
published a lot of research - all quoted here.

He even lies about who he works for.

To quote westom "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge
guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "One effective solution is to have
the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "Plug-in...The easiest of all for
anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to choose?'"
- Why do westom's "companies with integrity" make plug-in protectors?
- Why does "integrity" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment
may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the
point of use"?
- Why does the IEEE surge guide explain how plug-in protectors work -
and it is not primarily by earthing?
- Why did the investigation by surge expert find only 35 joules (and
usually far less) at a plug-in protector when the surge was the maximum
that will occur?
- Where is the record of fires westom claims?

Also never seen - a reliable source that agrees with westom's belief
that plug-in protectors do not work.

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

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 8:59:10 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
And from the NIST surge guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?

A promoter posts lies and abuse to protect sales. Even an NIST guide exposes his fabrications. What he needs you to not read (page 8):
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest" it.
What these protective devices do is neither suppress nor arrest
a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

A plug-in protector can only 'block' or 'absorb' (arrest) a surge due to no earth ground. It only does something useful AFTER a surge is properly earthed by a 'whole house' solution. Protection is always about how a surge is diverted to earth ground "where it can do no harm". Only then can a plug-in protector does an additional 0.2% protection defined by his quote. Then instead of 99.5% protection, one might have increased (99.7%) protection.

Earth ground defines protection. But his protectors have no earth ground. So he intentionally ignores those paragraphs. From the guide (page 19):
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.

Since he promotes near zero protectors missing earth ground, then you must also ignore this (page 7):
There is also a wide range in the severity of the strike itself,
with the very severe or very mild being rare, the majority
being in mid-range (a current of about 20,000 amperes for a
short time)

A 20,000 amp surge is safely earthed by a 50,000 amp 'whole house' protector. But not by his 'magic box' protector. If 20,000 amps is not earthed BEFORE entering, then destructive energy is inside. Protection has *always* been about 20,000 amps not being inside. He needs you to ignore spec numbers.

A 'whole house' solution earths 20,000 amps without damage. The guide says why. Effective protector has a low impedance connection to what must exist to have protection - ground. Then superior protection already inside appliances is not overwhelmed.

"The best surge protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly." Bud's job is to obfuscate reality. Informed consumer earths a 'whole house' protector to even protect a near zero and high profit plug-in protector. So bud demeans - posts insults - hoping that will mask technical lies. Honesty was never his asset.

NIST says why his protector is ineffective. "The best surge protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly." He needs you to not read that.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:10:21 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:28:49 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:
trader_4 posted for all of us...


Below grade is obviously safer, it can't get a direct hit from lightning
like overhead wired going to a house.


Tell that to my neighbor...

--
Tekkie

Tell us more. Where and how did this direct hit to an underground
service take place?

underground wires can pick up surges if lightning hits a nearby tree.

Best bet is to unplug the washer when not in use.

Or buy one with mechanical controls.

Mark

On 5/31/2016 12:08 AM, westom wrote:
On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 8:59:10 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
And from the NIST surge guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?

The answer to this question, deleted by westom, is something else westom
ignores.


A promoter posts lies and abuse to protect sales.

The lie repeated for the 4th time?

Perhaps westom could specifically detail a "lie" from me.

Even an NIST guide exposes his fabrications. What he needs you to not read (page 8):
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest" it.
What these protective devices do is neither suppress nor arrest
a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

What does the NIST surge guide actually say about plug-in protectors?
- they are "the easiest solution"?
- "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in protector?
- "Plug-in...The easiest of all for anyone to do. The only question is
'Which to choose?'"


A plug-in protector can only 'block' or 'absorb' (arrest) a surge due to no earth ground.

Neither plug-in or service panel protectors work by "blocking" or
"absorbing" a surge.

The operation of plug-in protectors is clearly explained in the IEEE
surge guide (starting page 30). Since it is not primarily by earthing
westom ignores the explanation, just like he ignores everything that
conflicts with his simple-minded beliefs about protection.

The IEEE surge guide says earthing occurs, but it is elsewhere in the
system. I have also explained how that works, but it is all too
complicated for westom.

Then instead of 99.5% protection, one might have increased (99.7%) protection.

Lie repeated for the 3rd time in this thread.
The numbers are for lighting rods and have nothing to do with surge
protectors.

westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often
enough, people will believe it.


Earth ground defines protection. But his protectors have no earth ground. So he intentionally ignores those paragraphs. From the guide (page 19):
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.

The NIST guide then goes through the options for surge protection.
"#6:
Plug-in
The easiest of all for anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to
choose?' "


A 20,000 amp surge is safely earthed by a 50,000 amp 'whole house' protector.

A relatively minor point, but a 20kA lightning strike does not produce a
20kA surge.
The worst probable scenario, with a 100kA strike, results in 10kA per
service wire. Information source - surge expert at the NIST.
This also has been repeated many times and always ignored by westom.

Bud's job is to obfuscate reality.

The lie repeated for the 5th time? I really don't think the "job" thing
is working.

What I have done is expose westoms misinformation using reliable sources
- the IEEE and NIST and the NIST surge expert.
westom does not say what I have written is wrong. He just ignores it.

So bud demeans - posts insults - hoping that will mask technical lies.

Poor sensitive westom is insulted by reality.
"Reality" was never westom's asset.

And my "lies" come from the IEEE and NIST.
westom's "facts" come from beliefs and hallucinations.

Honesty was never his asset.

"Reality" was never his asset

NIST says why his protector is ineffective.

Both the IEEE and NIST say plug-in protectors are effective.

Still missing - any reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in
protectors do not work.

And of course, still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge
guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "One effective solution is to have
the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "Plug-in...The easiest of all for
anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to choose?'"
- Why do westom's "companies with integrity" make plug-in protectors?
- Why does "integrity" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment
may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the
point of use"?
- Why does the IEEE surge guide explain how plug-in protectors work -
and it is not primarily by earthing?
- Why did the investigation by surge expert find only 35 joules (and
usually far less) at a plug-in protector when the surge was the maximum
that will occur?
- Where is the record of fires westom claims?

From the guide (page 19):
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.

Reality must be avoided when plug-in protectors are promoted.

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 10:13:15 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
From the guide (page 19):
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.

Reality must be avoided when plug-in protectors are promoted.

Note that the alleged expert here doesn't name the guide he's
talking about or provide a link. That' because if it's the IEEE
or NIST guides, they endorse using plug-in protectors, show them
being used, etc.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:38:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 10:13:15 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
From the guide (page 19):
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.

Reality must be avoided when plug-in protectors are promoted.

Note that the alleged expert here doesn't name the guide he's
talking about or provide a link. That' because if it's the IEEE
or NIST guides, they endorse using plug-in protectors, show them
being used, etc.

Addendum:

westom claimed or implies bud-- is a shill for some outfit selling
SPD's. Then he routinely resorts to being a victim, thinking people
are picking on him. He has avoided giving URL's to me (posting)
before. Did he ever talk about his credentials?
--
"No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up."
-- Lily Tomlin

On 6/1/2016 8:13 AM, westom wrote:

Reality must be avoided when plug-in protectors are promoted.

Reality must be avoided when defending a religious belief in earthing.

Reality such as answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge
guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "One effective solution is to have
the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "Plug-in...The easiest of all for
anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to choose?'"
- Why do westom's "companies with integrity" make plug-in protectors?
- Why does "integrity" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment
may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the
point of use"?
- Why does the IEEE surge guide explain how plug-in protectors work -
and it is not primarily by earthing?
- Why did the investigation by surge expert find only 35 joules (and
usually far less) at a plug-in protector when the surge was the maximum
that will occur?
- Where is the record of fires westom claims?

Reality such as any source that agree with westom that plug-in
protectors are not effective.

For reality read the IEEE and NIST surge guides, excellent reliable
information.
And both say plug-in protectors are effective.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:24:22 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:54:55 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:41:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:



"that wire must go though a foundation "

Interesting. What principle of physics is that requirement based on?

A Ufer?


I'd say a Ufer doesn't go "through" a foundation, it goes into it.
If that's what W Tom means, I guess my $1000 install number is way low.
You'd have to pour a new foundation for all those older homes before
Ufers became common in new construction to meet his requirement on
that one.


I never saw steel in a residential foundation until I moved to
Florida. The steel is continuous up (defined as lapped 48x the nominal
dimension of the steel and tied) through "dowelled cells" to the steel
in the tie beam on top of the block wall.

Are you counting an I-beam across the basement ceiling? I'd never
seen that in residential until I saw my house, built in 1979. It has
two of them.

On 06/28/2016 12:52 AM, Micky wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:33:53 -0500, Chet Kincaid
wrote:

Micky wrote:
Why wouldn't there be. For that matter, I'm guessing you can tell
something just by seeing how hot the condensing coils are. Maybe
with your fingers or an IR thermometer.
Barely warm at all. Air coming off them (it's a fan-blown condenser) is
hardly any warmer than room air being drawn in.

Well I'm no authority, but that sounds like low freon or a bad
compressor. What are compressors like when they are bad? Do they
work at all? Do they make a different noise? I don't know.

yes

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 02:52:17 -0400, Micky
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2016 15:24:22 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:54:55 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:41:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:



"that wire must go though a foundation "

Interesting. What principle of physics is that requirement based on?

A Ufer?


I'd say a Ufer doesn't go "through" a foundation, it goes into it.
If that's what W Tom means, I guess my $1000 install number is way low.
You'd have to pour a new foundation for all those older homes before
Ufers became common in new construction to meet his requirement on
that one.


I never saw steel in a residential foundation until I moved to
Florida. The steel is continuous up (defined as lapped 48x the nominal
dimension of the steel and tied) through "dowelled cells" to the steel
in the tie beam on top of the block wall.

Are you counting an I-beam across the basement ceiling? I'd never
seen that in residential until I saw my house, built in 1979. It has
two of them.

If there is no steel in the foundation, bonded to the lally columns,
the beam is not "building steel" and is not an electrode.