When the surge protection LED on a power strip won't light, is it likely to be a blown varistor?

[Richard Freeman]

If The Real Andy could dispute what was posted, then he would have
cited technical sources, provided numbers, or described engineering
concepts.

That is strange w_tom accusing someone else of his own Tactics.....

w_tom is unable to point to a Data sheet of a MOV capable of diverting a
Direct (or even near) strike with out suffereing degredation and damage

Instead he uses lawyer type logic. He is critical of a
paper just on this subject from the Bell System Technical Journal -

One that does not exist let me repeat myself once more for the retard :

Must have been a damn thin issue of the Bell system Technical Journal In
October 1960!

Because we go from Volume 39 Issue 5 In September of 1960 which has the
contributer acknowledgements starting page 1379 to the Next article
("Signalling Systems for the control of Telephone switching") in Volume 39
Issue 6 starting page 1381 on November 1960.

It looks suspiciously like they did not publish a Bell System Technical
guide in October 1960!

By the way none of the volumes I could find from 1960 had such an
article....

Sounds like w_tom is making stuff up again!

where real world experiences and research defined lightning protection?
Andy did as he did previously. He claims multiple reasons for
effective protection are wrong. He does not even acknowledge a single
posted reason.
He does not challenge a single number or citation. He
only says tens of reasons are all wrong. One sentence again proves his
point? Yes if one believes lawyer logic or politicians.

He knows that it is pretty well pointless I just respond to the moron to
highlight to other posters what an ignorant cretin w_tom is.

Why was a 1960 Bell System Technical Journal paper cited?

Because w_tom was hoping that no-one was able to check if the article
existed or not

Why does
no one else cite a technical reference?

They have been cited but w_tom just ignores them as inconvenient Facts that
get in the way of his fantasies

Why did Bodle and Gresh do
that research?

They may have done the research (if they exsisted) but we only have w_toms
word for what conclusion was reached....

Question was whether electronic telephone exchanges
would be more susceptible to lightning damage. Question was whether
well proven lightning protection from long before WWII was sufficient
for transistor protection.

Was this Transistor protection before WWII ????

Anyone who knows about surge protection
learns from early 1900s research AND again in 1950s and 1960s research
for semiconductor protection. Their first sentence:

Yes? and so ? this line does not actually state any conclusions.

Obviously anyone who learns surge protection would read this paper.

We cannot because the paper does not exsist where w_tom says it is - and
those of us who have followed w_toms ravings before know well that he has a
propensity for reaching the opposite conclusion from a paper that the Author
reached - as an example w_tom recently referred to data sheet for TVS Diodes
on how to select the appropriate TVS for your high speed data service as
proof that TVS's were not appropriate for use on high speed data

Learned is why (when) lightning does not damage transistors.
Principles of effective protection is pre-1960 research. Those who
know protection would also know why that 1960 paper is so appropriate.

once again w_tom assumes that protecting Strowger switch gear is the same as
protection for a Modern digital exchange
But really w_tom is sidetracking the gentle reader as w_tom holds protection
of Exchange equipment up as an illustration of how effective MOV protection
is when in fact modern exchanges do not use MOVs and MOVs have not ever
really been particularly popular for exchange protection (not even before
they were invented around the 1960's ;-)

Effective protection is that old and well proven no matter how many
times Richard Freeman posts insults and spins half truths.

w_tom is the one who insults the readers intelligence by posting misquotes
and lies

Bottom line fact - protection is provided by earthing. No earth
ground means no effective protection. What is the essential component
in every protection system? No a power strip protector. Not a
protector's indicator lamp nor MOV inside that protector. Earthing -
as demonstrated by Franklin in 1752 - is the most essential protection
component in every telephone CO (switching station). Even the Bodle
and Gresh paper demonstrates why earthing is so critical where damage
is not acceptable.

Time and Time again I point this out to w_tom but he still misses the basic
ohms law :

a Good ground resistance for a single earth stake is considered to be 5-10
Ohms
the current in a typical Lightning strike is 30,000 to over 200,000 Amps
Lets take the lowest Figures of 5 Ohms at 30,000 Amps

5*30,000 gives us an EPR of 150,000 Volts

what this means is that in the event of Lightning being shunted to the Earth
stake then the Earth stake will rise to 150,000 Volts above ground (at best!
at worst try about 2,000,000 Volts).

w_tom accuses others of note quoting numbers but ignores them when they are
thrown at him as incovenient.

Forget the protector's LED indicator. A protector without a

Yes forget the LED indicator as only w_tom ever brings this up in
conversation - But at least it tells you when your MOV is stuffed - oh thats
roight w_tom is still having trouble with MOVs degrading and reckons that if
you get a big enough one it will last for ever - shame he cannot provide a
link to the Data sheet for this mythical MOV...

dedicated earthing connection AND whose manufacturer avoids all
discussion about earthing:

Well maybe the manufacturer is merely being realistic and not pretending
that a Single Earth stake is adequate ....

ineffective. Well, at least one poster
first learned well proven technology and did this stuff.

Who ??? Not w_tom thats for sure he obviously does not have a clue ..

So well
grounded that even Richard Freeman insults do no damage.

oh dear looks like he has Blocked me - Damn shame ;-)

 

[The Real Andy]

If The Real Andy could dispute what was posted, then he would have
cited technical sources, provided numbers, or described engineering

You see w_tom, its not worth my time doing a research paper for you,
becuase you fail to respond to whats posted. Instead you steer away
from the topic.

BTW: When I was at uni, I learned how to gather information and
publish it. However, 90% of what I did I never really understood until
I actaully put it into practice.

concepts. Instead he uses lawyer type logic. He is critical of a
paper just on this subject from the Bell System Technical Journal -
where real world experiences and research defined lightning protection?

LOL, you are using defence lawer tactics now, citing lies. Where was I
critical of the paper? I made note to your 1960 references, which
suggests to me that you do not understand modern telco design. Thats
being critical of you, not the paper.

<snip>

If you would like to make yourself credible, then please respond to
what I posted.

 

[Richard Freeman]

You see w_tom, its not worth my time doing a research paper for you,
becuase you fail to respond to whats posted. Instead you steer away
from the topic.

BTW: When I was at uni, I learned how to gather information and
publish it. However, 90% of what I did I never really understood until
I actaully put it into practice.



LOL, you are using defence lawer tactics now, citing lies. Where was I
critical of the paper? I made note to your 1960 references, which
suggests to me that you do not understand modern telco design. Thats
being critical of you, not the paper.

Well Actually Andy he is citing more lies than you think you see and let me
quote from w_tom directly here :

Now unfortunately for w_tom there is a listing of the Bell System Technical
Journal publications and Articles available at:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/BSTJ_papers

and while this listing is not complete all the 1960 issues are there, and it
is pretty clear that the Bell System Technical Journal was not published in
October of 1960 !
The Bell System Technical Journal was published every Second month in 1960
with Volume 39 Issue 5 published in September of 1960 and Volume 39 Issue 6
published in November 1960 !
None of the Articles listed for 1960 were written by Bodel or Gresh

If you would like to make yourself credible, then please respond to
what I posted.

He is not credible as he is a Liar and he cannot respond to Direct postings
this is why he carefully guards his anonymity.

Best Regards (to Andy and other Lurkers)
Richard Freeman