Surge protectors?

[w_tom]

Its w_'s tower antenna fetish. If you plan on erecting a 280 foot
lightning rod (aka. tower antenna)in your yard and connecting it to
equipment in your house this may be relevant.

Bud is reposting the same 'attack dog' myth again. The same
response is one he cannot deny. But he will post this same antenna
myth again and again.

Incoming utility wires are equivalent to an antenna. A lightning
strike to AC electric wires down the street is a direct strike to
household appliances. Those wires act just like a 280 foot antenna.
Solution to avoid damage is also same.

Does not matter if the structure is a 280 foot tower, your AC
electric wires, a church steeple, or even your chimney. Same solution
in every case is earth ground.

What was learned in routine strikes to radio towers is then applied
to homes where lightning strikes are less frequent. What Ben Franklin
demonstrated in 1752 is the same principle behind effective 'whole
house' protectors. Plug-in protectors without earthing will somehow
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? That is what Bud
claims.

Destructive surges seek earth ground. A 280 foot tower does not
use plug-in protectors for the same reason they are not effective
inside homes. The effective protector - inside a radio station,
inside a telco switching center, inside the 911 emergency response
center, inside military facilities - in each case the effective
protector makes that short connection to earth. A direct strike not
earthed will then use other less conductive and more destructive paths
such as a wooden church steeple and/or household appliances.

One effective 'whole house' protector costs about $1 per protected
appliance. Since Bud's equivalent solution is about $2000 or $3000
for plug-in protectors (that have no earth ground). Which is money
better spent? The proven solution where lightning strikes 280 foot
towers is also the reliable and less expensive solution.

One 'whole house' protector properly earthed means a surge will not
overwhelm protection already inside appliances. Bud's own citation
Page 42 Figure 8 shows what sometimes happens when a protector is too
close to the TV and too far from earth ground - 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV.

Bud also will say anything to avoid these scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Thanks to URLs provided here, we also have another example of
problems with plug-in protectors from the Gaston County Fire Marshall:
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING SURGE SUPPRESSOR FIRES.doc

When selling protectors that don't even claim to protect from
typically destructive surges, then why properly sized them? Making
them smaller caused the naive to claim "a protector sacrificed itself
to save my computer". Effective protector earths surges, does so
without human knowledge, and remains functional.

Bud does not promote for effective protector manufacturers. So he
again posts a myth about 280 foot antennas. What had been well proven
in science papers was even demonstrated by Franklin on church steeples
in 1752. Everyone is strongly encouraged to review those scary
pictures. Read what the Fire Marshall in Gaston County has
discovered. Products that are missing an essential earthing wire so
also create other problems. 'Scary pictures' of protectors more
concerned with profits rather than for effective protection
demonstrate a well proven principle: No earth ground means no
effective protection.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Yawn.


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:


Yawn.


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

Bud's own citation
Page 42 Figure 8 shows what sometimes happens when a protector is too
close to the TV and too far from earth ground - 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV.

The lie repeated yet again.

Still not explained - how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?

Bud also will say anything to avoid these scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can’t understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

Thanks to URLs provided here, we also have another example of
problems with plug-in protectors from the Gaston County Fire Marshall:
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING SURGE SUPPRESSOR FIRES.doc

Also refers to a “Thermal Cut Out ... that is intended shut the unit
down overheating occurs [sic]”. Does not say there is a problem with
suppressors manufactured under current UL standards. It is also not dated.

No earth ground means no
effective protection.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.
The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Still no links to a source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still not explained by w_:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

A sometimes reliable source has informed me that w_ was the author of
George's old policy on global warming.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

w_ has never provided a link to the mythical $50 ‘whole house
protector’. Or specs for one.
Yet another claim w_ can't back up with a source.

Despite having been asked to many times. His inability, or refusal, to
cite a source, which would be trivial to do, automatically casts
suspicion on every other argument he puts forward.

IOW, if he can't substantiate his claim that whole-house protectors are
available for ~$50, can we believe anything else he says? Of course,
the answer to that question is no. This very quickly becomes clear to
anyone who counters his arguments and is subject to the lies, deceit and
bullshitting that are w_tom's stock in trade.

 

[w_tom]

Yawn.

A widely known fire risk from plug-in protectors results in yawns
from Michael. Notice how he sleeps when critical facts are
discussed. No wonder he recommend Panamax protectors on cable when
the cable company recommends removing them.

 

[w_tom]

Yawn.

Yawn when underlying reasons and numbers are provided. Surges are
absorbed by earthing. Protectors will not provide protection if that
short earthing path is missing. In the military, technicians are told
to always have that earthing - but not why. Provided above are the
'whys'. A protector is effective when it has that 'less than 10 foot'
earthing connection. No way around reality. How earthing is
installed for even better protection was described in http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef
.. One who does not want to know would yawn.

Meanwhile, power supplies with a maximum load must start up just
fine when incandescent bulbs are at 40% intensity. Those 'obsolete'
requirements were enhanced in Intel specs. But again, some instead
yawn. Many computers assemblers really don't want to know when
selling computers with inferior power supplies - selected only on
dollars and watts. Dumping inferior product on customers is just too
profitable. But those old standards remain. A technician educated in
reasons why would have known that computers must even start when 120
VAC is only 90. Many technicians instead yawn when important
standards are provided.

A technician who understood why earthing was essential for surge
protection would not promote those grossly profitable and ineffective
Panamax protectors. What do cable companies recommend - and properly
so? Remove the Panamax. It only degrades cable signal. If a
customer needs better protection, then earthing is enhanced. Better
conductive electrodes. Shorter connections to earth. Superior
solution also costs less money. But one has to stay awake to learn
the reasons why.

Surge protection is defined by earthing. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. Better informed technicians know this
- don't sleep during the numbers.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

A widely known fire risk from plug-in protectors results in yawns
from Michael. Notice how he sleeps when critical facts are
discussed. No wonder he recommend Panamax protectors on cable when
the cable company recommends removing them.

Yawn was for the excessively long garbage you post to hide any facts.
I defy you to find any post I've made recommending "Panamax protectors
on cable" because you are lying, as always.


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:


I guess you spent all of physic class smoking in the girls bathroom,
since you can't tell the difference between common mode and shunt
clamping,


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida