|
Home > Archive > Construction forum > January 2007 > new building wiring protection
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
new building wiring protection
|
|
| im.your.conscience 2006-12-06, 1:35 pm |
| We are in the process of engineering the wiring for the a building and
need to know if we should put special surge or lightning protection on
the circuits that will be running the computers or the standard
protection for the building is adequate.
it's going to be a retail warehouse. approx. 5-8 computers running
24/7. wondering what kind of things should be considered while wiring
the store in the construction phase
| |
|
| The concepts are same that apply to any commercial radio station,
telephone switching center, or even a 911 response center such as this
one (corrected) in Orange County FL:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
Nothing new about these pre-WWII concepts. Transistors mean that all
buildings now must implement this system - starting when the footing
are poured.
Concepts were discussed previously. Remember every incoming wire
(overhead or underground) is no different than an antenna connected
directly to every transistorized appliance.
How transmission lines would not damage the telephone exchange (CO) or
modems in the newsgroup tmnet.communities on 1 Dec 2006 entitled
Question at:
http://tinyurl.com/wk9vs
> Because an exchange cannot be damaged by
> lightning, then the thing that protects ...
Same concepts to eliminate lightning damage to inverters for
photovoltaic system in the newsgroup alt.solar.photovoltaic on 29 Nov
2006 entitled Problems during Lightning Storms at and in following
posts:
http://tinyurl.com/y93vue
> Appreciate that well over 90% of all trees struck
> by lightning leave no indication. Just ...
How telephone appliances may have been damaged and how that damage
could have been averted in the newsgroup
rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons on 29 Nov 2006 entitled Thunder
and lightning at:
http://tinyurl.com/y23c24
> Reasons for surge protectors are protection from
> direct strikes. Previous post discussed ...
im.your.conscience wrote:
> We are in the process of engineering the wiring for the a building and
> need to know if we should put special surge or lightning protection on
> the circuits that will be running the computers or the standard
> protection for the building is adequate.
>
> it's going to be a retail warehouse. approx. 5-8 computers running
> 24/7. wondering what kind of things should be considered while wiring
> the store in the construction phase
| |
|
|
On Dec 6, 12:53 pm, "im.your.conscience" <im.your.conscie...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We are in the process of engineering the wiring for the a building and
> need to know if we should put special surge or lightning protection on
> the circuits that will be running the computers or the standard
> protection for the building is adequate.
>
> it's going to be a retail warehouse. approx. 5-8 computers running
> 24/7. wondering what kind of things should be considered while wiring
> the store in the construction phase
(im - cross posting is a good idea.)
The best information I have seen on surges and surge protection is at
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/L...sion_May051.pdf
- the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the
IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US).
A second guide is
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/...s/surgesfnl.pdf
- this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency
formerly called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001
The IEEE guide is better (the NIST guide is less technical).
A service panel surge protector should be used. The guides give
informition on sizing.
Also note the information on single point grounding. The phone and
other incoming non-power wiring should have their protectors near the
power wiring entry and those protectors should connect to the grounding
electrode conductor from the power service close to the power service.
Any significant earthing currents from a surge will cause the "ground"
in the building to rise above 'absolute' earth potential. You want the
grounds for the power system (ground/neutral bond connection) to rise
together with the phone and other incoming systems so there is not a
damaging potential difference between them.
How much additional protection depends on how critical the computers
are. They could, for instance, run from a subpanel with its own surge
protector and have adjacent surge protectors for signal wires to the
computers connected with short wires to the subpanel ground - a local
single point ground.
More information is in the "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Electronic Equipment", the IEEE "Emerald" book. If interested
you can get an abstract, the table contents, and chapter 1 - overview
at:
http://standards.ieee.org/colorbook...Emeraldbook.pdf
--
bud--
| |
| Carolyn Marenger 2006-12-08, 9:25 am |
| im.your.conscience wrote:
> We are in the process of engineering the wiring for the a building and
> need to know if we should put special surge or lightning protection on
> the circuits that will be running the computers or the standard
> protection for the building is adequate.
I would suggest battery backed up surge protection, be it from lightning, or
from heavy equipment startup. I would also highly recommend a dedicated
ground for the circuits. For the few hundred dollars it should cost, it
should help eliminate early computer failure.
> it's going to be a retail warehouse. approx. 5-8 computers running
> 24/7. wondering what kind of things should be considered while wiring
> the store in the construction phase
Carolyn
--
Carolyn Marenger
| |
|
| Many have no idea what is inside that UPS. For example, the typical
battery backup UPS connects electronics directly to AC mains when not
in battery backup mode. Where is the protection created by a relay?
It does not exist. But when selling to those who never look at
numerical specifications, then 'half truth' phrases get those people to
believe myths.
Plug-in UPSes typically have the same undersized protector circuit
found inside power strip protectors. What does that protector circuit
do? Does it protector connected appliances, or does it only protector
electronics inside the UPS? Well they don't even say that because UPS
protection does not even claim protection from a type of transient that
typically damages electronics.
Simply by failing to mention which type of surge it protects from,
then others without basic electrical knowledge will *assume* it
protects from all types of surges.
The plug-in battery backup UPS does not provide nor claim protection
from typically destructive surges. And its own numerical
specifications doe not even provide numbers for protection that Carolyn
has just speculated. Don't take my word for it. Post those numbers
here for each type of transient. Notice Carolyn cannot post those
numbers because even the plug-in UPS manufacturer does not make claims
that Carolyn has just posted.
Any transient protection provided by that UPS is already inside
electronics. Protection that requires a properly earthing 'whole house'
protector so that internal protection is not overwhelmed.
Just another indicator of an ineffective protector inside that UPS.
Where is a dedicated earthing wire for the necessary 'less than 10
foot' connection? Not a safety ground in AC wiring. A separate
earthing wire. Just another damning detail that says that plug-in
battery backup UPS does not provide effective protection.
Carolyn Marenger wrote:
> ...
> I would suggest battery backed up surge protection, be it from lightning, or
> from heavy equipment startup. I would also highly recommend a dedicated
> ground for the circuits. For the few hundred dollars it should cost, it
> should help eliminate early computer failure.
> ...
| |
|
|
On Dec 8, 4:58 pm, "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> Many have no idea what is inside that UPS. For example, the typical
> battery backup UPS connects electronics directly to AC mains when not
> in battery backup mode. Where is the protection created by a relay?
> It does not exist. But when selling to those who never look at
> numerical specifications, then 'half truth' phrases get those people to
> believe myths.
A UPS may or may not have effective surge protection.
>
> Plug-in UPSes typically have the same undersized protector circuit
> found inside power strip protectors. What does that protector circuit
> do? Does it protector connected appliances, or does it only protector
> electronics inside the UPS? Well they don't even say that because UPS
> protection does not even claim protection from a type of transient that
> typically damages electronics.
>
> Simply by failing to mention which type of surge it protects from,
> then others without basic electrical knowledge will *assume* it
> protects from all types of surges.
Any serious surge protector, including all that are listed under
UL1449, will have protection (usually MOVs) from hot-neutral,
hot-ground, neutral-ground. (They should also have protection from
external signal wires to ground.) They do protect from all types of
surges. Ratings can vary from junk to very high.
>
> The plug-in battery backup UPS does not provide nor claim protection
> from typically destructive surges. And its own numerical
> specifications doe not even provide numbers for protection that Carolyn
> has just speculated. Don't take my word for it. Post those numbers
> here for each type of transient. Notice Carolyn cannot post those
> numbers because even the plug-in UPS manufacturer does not make claims
> that Carolyn has just posted.
A bs argument. w_ has never posted specs for different surge modes for
any of his favorite surge suppressors. UL 1449 suppressors act on all
modes. In addition, common mode surges (H & N lift away from G) coming
in on the power line are converted to transverse mode surges (H lifts
away from N & G) by the N-G bond in US services. A UPS may or may not
have surge suppression for connected equipment.
>
> Just another indicator of an ineffective protector inside that UPS.
> Where is a dedicated earthing wire for the necessary 'less than 10
> foot' connection? Not a safety ground in AC wiring. A separate
> earthing wire. Just another damning detail that says that plug-in
> battery backup UPS does not provide effective protection.
Your religious beliefs about earthing are not shared by the IEEE or
NIST guides. The IEEE guide clearly describes action of plug-in
suppressors as CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground
at the surge suppressor. As you could determine by reading, they do not
work primarily by earthing. And the IEEE and NIST guides both say
plug-in surge suppressors are effective.
Note that interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor or interconnecting wires, like LAN (also phone)
need to go through the suppressor. This is called a Surge Reference
Equalizer in the IEEE guide (but thay are not sold under that name).
--
bud--
| |
|
| Bud represents interests of plug-in protector manufactures. To promote
myths, he posted:
> Any serious surge protector, including all that are listed
> under UL1449 ...
Purpose of UL is human safety. UL makes no effort to confirm a
product works. In fact, a surge protector can completely fail during
UL1449 testing and still get UL certified only because completely
failed protector has not threatened human life. What good is a surge
protector that fails even during the most trivial UL1449 test?
Ineffective - but it still gets a UL1449 approval - in direct
contradiction to what Bud has posted.
UL is concerned only with human safety. Transistor protection is
completely irrelevant to UL.
Plug-in protectors have a history of failing prematurely. This
repeated failure was so common that UL created this UL1449 standard
well over 20 years ago. Look what sometimes happens long after UL1449
was standard. Too often a plug-in protector that also provides
ineffective protection can do this:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Ar...0Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/program...otectorfire.htm
Bud will promote his half truths for as long as it is profitable. He
repeatedly reposts these same half truths in numerous newsgroups. Those
protectors not only failed. They are typically located where that
failure is most dangerous - behind a desk, on a rug, or adjacent to a
pile of papers.
Meanwhile Bud will also have you believe an IEEE paper is a
recommendation from the IEEE. IEEE makes all recommendations
elsewhere; in IEEE standards. Two IEEE standards define what is
required from a protector:
IEEE Red Book (IEEE Std 141):
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
> process of interception of lightning produced surges,
> diverting them to ground, and by altering their
> associated wave shapes.
IEEE Green Book (IEEE Std 142) is entitled 'Static and Lightning
Protection Grounding':
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
> diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
> not result in damage.
Earthing is essential for "intercepting or diverting" the surge.
Plug-in UPSes use a same undersized protector circuit found in power
strip protectors. Look for what a plug-in UPS does not provide - a
short and dedicated connection to earth. No earth ground means no
effective protection - with or without UL1449 approval. Those UPSes
also do not claim protection from each type of surge in their numerical
specs. Why would they claim what they don't provide? The damning fact
- no dedicated earthing wire. The plug-in UPS is for data protection
from blackouts and extreme brownouts.
bud-- wrote:
> Any serious surge protector, including all that are listed under
> UL1449, will have protection (usually MOVs) from hot-neutral,
> hot-ground, neutral-ground. (They should also have protection from
> external signal wires to ground.) They do protect from all types of
> surges. Ratings can vary from junk to very high.
> ...
>
> A bs argument. w_ has never posted specs for different surge modes for
> any of his favorite surge suppressors. UL 1449 suppressors act on all
> modes. In addition, common mode surges (H & N lift away from G) coming
> in on the power line are converted to transverse mode surges (H lifts
> away from N & G) by the N-G bond in US services. A UPS may or may not
> have surge suppression for connected equipment.
> ...
>
> Note that interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
> plug-in suppressor or interconnecting wires, like LAN (also phone)
> need to go through the suppressor. This is called a Surge Reference
> Equalizer in the IEEE guide (but thay are not sold under that name).
| |
|
|
On Dec 9, 6:10 pm, "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> Bud represents interests of plug-in protector manufactures.
I agree with w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only interests
in surge protectors are that I have one.
> To promote
> myths, he posted:
> product works. <snip>
My point was only that UL1449 surge suppressors have protection from
H--N, H-G, N--G and they will protect from all surge modes, contrary to
the the myth w_. tries to create.
>
> Plug-in protectors have a history of failing prematurely. This
> repeated failure was so common that UL created this UL1449 standard
> well over 20 years ago. Look what sometimes happens long after UL1449
> was standard. Too often a plug-in protector that also provides
> ineffective protection can do this:
If you don't have technical arguments use pathetic scare tactics.
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Ar...0Protectors.pdf
Includes guidelines for using plug-in suppressors
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
For those who know how to read, this link talks about "some older
model" power strips and specifically references the revised UL
standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as a fix
for overheating MOVs.
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
This link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which w_ say don't work.
>http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/program...otectorfire.htm
Same event as the first link above with pictures that don't work.
None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective, or that they should not
be used, or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.
>
> Bud will promote his half truths for as long as it is profitable.
The "old political trick" again.
> He
> repeatedly reposts these same half truths in numerous newsgroups.
w_ searches google groups for "surge" and "lightning" so he can share
his "wisdom". I try to correct some of his posts. My posts consistently
reference the guides from IEEE and NIST, which are excellent sources
of information on surges and surge protection. No one agrees with w_
that plug-in protectors are ineffective. I note that w_ did not try to
post this crap at alt.engineering.electrical, where im.your.conscience
posted the same initial question.
>
> Meanwhile Bud will also have you believe an IEEE paper is a
> recommendation from the IEEE. IEEE makes all recommendations
> elsewhere; in IEEE standards. Two IEEE standards define what is
> required from a protector:
> IEEE Red Book (IEEE Std 141):....
> Protection Grounding':....
The IEEE guide (note it is from the IEEE) is not a "paper". It is a
"guide" published for the general public. You have to be stupid to
think an IEEE guide for the general public would conflict with the IEEE
color books.
> Earthing is essential for "intercepting or diverting" the surge.
As has been stated numerous times, it is clear in the IEEE guide that
plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the
common ground at the suppressor. Because of w_'s religious beliefs
about earthing, he appears to be unable to read and understand the IEEE
and NIST guides.
> Plug-in UPSes use a same undersized protector circuit found in power
> strip protectors.
Surge protector ratings go from junk ot very high. You pay for what you
get. UPSs may or may not have effective surge protection. A UPS can be
plugged into a plug-in surge protector.
> Look for what a plug-in UPS does not provide - a
> short and dedicated connection to earth. No earth ground means no
> effective protection
The statement of religious belief again.
>. Those UPSes
> also do not claim protection from each type of surge in their numerical
> specs. Why would they claim what they don't provide?
Still a bs argument. w_ has never provided specs for "each type of
surge" for any of his favorite protectors. And as previously explained,
only transverse mode power surges can get past the US N-G service bond.
> The damning fact
> - no dedicated earthing wire.
And the statement of religious belief again.
Anyone interested in surges and surge protection is encouraged to read
the IEEE guide at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/L...lishedversio...
Or the NIST guide at
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/...s/surgesfnl.pdf
These guides cover much more than plug-in suppressors.
But both guides say plug-in surge suppressors are effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: never seen
--
bud--
| |
|
| bud-- wrote:
> ...
> My point was only that UL1449 surge suppressors have protection from
> H--N, H-G, N--G and they will protect from all surge modes, contrary to
> the the myth w_. tries to create.
Shunting H-N, H-G, N-G adjacent to electronics is even what the telco
(with overhead wires all over town connected to their $multi-million
computer) does not want inside their switching station. Telco shunts
each wire to earth up to 50 meters away from electronics AND as close
to earth ground as possible. Earthing where every wire enters the
building is essential to protection - in direct contradiction to what
'miracle' plug-in protector manufacturers imply.
We even demonstrated how shunting H-N, H-G, N-G adjacent to networked
computers only shunted lightning destructively through those powered
off computers. We even traced the lightning path by locating and
replacing each damaged (sometimes shattered) ICs. A protector located
too far from earth ground only shunted H-N, H-G, N-G from a surging
wire into all other wires entering a computer. Plug-in protector
simply gave the surge more destructive paths to round via a powered off
computer network. Shunts (without an earth ground) inside that
protector used adjacent computers as the earthing connection -
destructively.
How to identify ineffective solutions that are grossly undersized AND
excessively profitable? It has no dedicated earthing wire and its
promoter hopes you never learn what IEEE demands as necessary for
protection: earth ground. No short (low impedance) connect to earth
means no effective protection. Plug-in 'miracle' solutions will not
even discuss earthing - hoping you will fall for their so profitable
myths.
No earth ground means no effective protection. Protection of
electronics starts when footings are poured. Ufer grounding or a halo
ground is standard where humans want to install superior protection and
at much less money.
http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/t...ber/026083.html
> An Ufer ground ... this may be the ENTIRE ground system.
> Since the concrete is conductive and there is lots of
> concrete area in contact with the soil, it does a pretty
> reasonable job.
Industry benchmark is Polyphaser. Polyphaser application notes do
not discuss their products. Polyphaser app notes repeatedly discuss
THE most critical component in any protection system. Earthing:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx
Orange County FL suffered repeated failures because their protection
system was not sufficient. How were those Orange County facilities
fixed? See the solution - earthing - in pictures:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
Notice what professionals do not use - whether it is a 911 response
center, a telephone switching center, or even in IEEE Standards. They
don't use protectors without earthing. No earth ground is why plug-in
protectors provide no effective protection. Earthing defines the
effectiveness of a 'whole house' protector. Some who represent the
plug-in industry hope you never learn that reality.
| |
|
|
On Dec 11, 3:39 pm, "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> bud-- wrote:
> (with overhead wires all over town connected to their $multi-million
> computer) does not want inside their switching station. <etc>
May be useful for everyone who installs a telephone company switch in
their basement.
>
> We even demonstrated how shunting H-N, H-G, N-G adjacent to networked
> computers only shunted lightning destructively through those powered
> off computers. <etc>
For those with minimal reading and thinking ability, the IEEE guide
clearly describes SREs, which clamp the voltage on ALL wires to the
common ground at the suppressor.
>
> How to identify ineffective solutions that are grossly undersized AND
> excessively profitable?
The "undersized" straw man. Suppressors with high ratings are readily
available.
> It has no dedicated earthing wire and its
> promoter hopes you never learn what IEEE demands as necessary for
> protection: earth ground. No short (low impedance) connect to earth
> means no effective protection.
The religious mantra, not shared by the IEEE or NIST guides.
>
> No earth ground means no effective protection.
The religious mantra, #2.
> Protection of
> electronics starts when footings are poured. Ufer grounding or a halo
> ground is standard where humans want to install superior protection and
> at much less money.
Concrete encased electrode/Ufer grounds are very good but discussion of
grounding electrodes is irrelevant to plug-in suppressors. A "halo
ground" is a wire around the top of a room and may be used near a
tower antenna - not something anyone else would install.
> http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
> http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
> http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
LInks about Ufer electrodes, irrelevant to discussion of plug-in
suppressors.
>
> http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/t...ber/026083.html
Totally irrelevant link.
>
Discussion about Ufer electrodes is irrelevant to plug-in suppressors.
[color=darkred]
> Industry benchmark is Polyphaser. Polyphaser application notes do
> not discuss their products. Polyphaser app notes repeatedly discuss
> THE most critical component in any protection system. Earthing:
> http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx
Dead link - like w_'s arguments.
>
> Orange County FL suffered repeated failures because their protection
> system was not sufficient. How were those Orange County facilities
> fixed? See the solution - earthing - in pictures:
> http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
w_ has a fetish about tower antennas. If you plan on erecting a 280
foot lightning rod (aka. tower antenna) in your yard and connecting it
to equipment in your building this may be relevant. But not for the
rest of us.
> No earth ground is why plug-in
> protectors provide no effective protection. Earthing defines the
> effectiveness of a 'whole house' protector.
Religious mantra #3.
> Some who represent the
> plug-in industry hope you never learn that reality.
And w_ almost forgot the "old political trick".
As always, no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective. Or
even links relevant to plug-in suppressors.
But the IEEE and NIST guides still both say plug--in suppresors are
effective.
--
bud--
| |
|
| Bud knows and now denies that a surge enters on any power line,
telephone wire, or antennas the same way and for same reasons. To
promote his ineffective and so profitable products, Bud claims your
household transistors are somehow not same as transistors inside a
telephone switching exchange (the CO). Well, yes. Telephone switching
exchange transistors are same transistors but can never suffer damage.
So telco - that has been using surge protection for 70+ years - still
does not use what Bud recommends.
A homeowner needs the less expensive and more effective solution also
used in telephone COs. As IEEE recommends in standards, that means
earth ground.
Bud's citations do not even say what he posts. In technical terms,
Bud's own citation says a kid connecting an Xbox to a TV will
completely destroy such protection. What kind of protector can even be
compromised by a kid with an Xbox? Ineffective, as Bud recommends.
And it costs more money.
Do you want these next to desktop papers or on your rug? Undersizing
protectors also promotes sales. These 'scary pictures' are what Bud
recommends when he represents plug-in protector manufacturers:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Ar...0Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
Effective protector makes a short connection to earthing that is best
installed when footings are poured. Bud says:
> Concrete encased electrode/Ufer grounds ... is irrelevant
> to plug-in suppressors.
Of course. Even IEEE standards define earthing as necessary. As Bud
now admits, plug-in protectors have no earthing. IOW Bud claims his
protectors will somehow stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
not ... since it has no earthing to clamp to. Bud claims that grossly
undersized plug-in protector will even stop what three miles of sky
could not. Why does Bud also so emphatically deny those above 'scary
pictures'?
An effective, properly sized, and less expensive 'whole house'
solution does exactly what your telco does so that surges do not damage
transistors. Telcos don't use plug-in protectors because those Bud
recommended devices are not effective, are grossly overpriced, and can
only do what already exists inside the electronics. Even IEEE says:
> ... lightning protection is achieve by the process of
> interception of lightning produced surges, diverting
> them to ground,
Bud even misrepresents what IEEE recommends to promote his so
profitable myths. His own citations even define why a kid with an Xbox
compromises a plug-in protector. No earth ground means no effective
protection. 'Whole house' protector - a many times less expensive
solution provided by responsible manufacturers such as Square D,
Siemens, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, and GE - does make that
essential earthing connection.
No earth ground means no effective protection.
bud-- wrote:
> May be useful for everyone who installs a telephone company switch in
> their basement.
> ...
>
> The "undersized" straw man. Suppressors with high ratings are readily
> available.
> ...
>
> The religious mantra, #2.
> ...
>
> Concrete encased electrode/Ufer grounds are very good but discussion of
> grounding electrodes is irrelevant to plug-in suppressors. A "halo
> ground" is a wire around the top of a room and may be used near a
> tower antenna - not something anyone else would install.
> ...
>
> Discussion about Ufer electrodes is irrelevant to plug-in suppressors.
> ...
>
> w_ has a fetish about tower antennas. If you plan on erecting a 280
> foot lightning rod (aka. tower antenna) in your yard and connecting it
> to equipment in your building this may be relevant. But not for the
> rest of us.
> ...
>
> As always, no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective. Or
> even links relevant to plug-in suppressors.
> But the IEEE and NIST guides still both say plug--in suppresors are
> effective.
| |
|
|
On Dec 12, 4:02 pm, "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
Teh latest collection of stupidity and misquotes.
> To
> promote his ineffective and so profitable products,
Start with the "old political trick"
>. As IEEE recommends in standards, that means
> earth ground.
As the IEEE makes clear in the IEEE guide, plug-in surge suppressors
are effective.
>
> Bud's citations do not even say what he posts. In technical terms,
> Bud's own citation says a kid connecting an Xbox to a TV will
> completely destroy such protection. What kind of protector can even be
> compromised by a kid with an Xbox?
A kid with an Xbox is smarter than w_.
> These 'scary pictures' are what Bud
> recommends when he represents plug-in protector manufacturers:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Ar...0Protectors.pdf
> http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
The pahtetic scare tactics back again, already covered. As previously
pointed out, the hanford link references the revised UL standard,
effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as a fix for
overheating MOVs Problems with overheating MOVs was fixed in 1998. None
of these links say plug-in suppressors don't work or shouldn't be used
and some give guidelines on how to use them.
> . As Bud
> now admits, plug-in protectors have no earthing.
Idiotic statement. Plug-in suppressors are earthed through the power
system ground wire. As clearly described in the IEEE guide, protection
is by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the
surge suppressor. Earthing is secondary. But that contradicts w_'s
religious beliefs.
> IOW Bud claims his
> protectors will somehow stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
> not ... since it has no earthing to clamp to.
Anyone with minimal intelligence can read the IEEE guide and understand
how plug-in suppressors work.
> Bud claims that grossly
> undersized plug-in protector
The "undersized" straw man.
> Why does Bud also so emphatically deny those above 'scary
> pictures'?
>From w_'s hanford link: fixed with the UL revision in 1998.
> Telcos don't use plug-in protectors because those Bud
> recommended devices are not effective,
Telcos don't use plug-in suppressors on their switches because the
switches are very large, high amp, hard wired devices with a huge
number of phone lines coming in. It is stupid to talk about a plug-in
suppressor in that application. You use the technology that is
appropriate to the application. As is clearly shown in the IEEE guide
chapter on Examples, plug-in suppressors can effectively provide
protection for common applications in home or office.
>
Bud even misrepresents what IEEE recommends to promote his so
> profitable myths.
The "old political trick" again. And I recommend what the IEEE and NIST
guides recommend. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
> . No earth ground means no effective
> protection.
The religious mantra, not shared by the IEEE and NIST guides.
>
> No earth ground means no effective protection.
And a final chanting of the religious mantra.
But still no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective.
Sorry w_, nobody agrees with you.
And the IEEE and NIST still say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
| |
| im.your.conscience 2007-01-06, 8:27 pm |
| The newest question that was proposed to me today was the concern with
the grounding of the current with the incredibly sandy soil that will
be in the area. Will that grounding rod have to be dug out around and
filled with a more dense soil mixture in order for it to work
accordingly?
| |
| hawgeye 2007-01-06, 8:27 pm |
|
"im.your.conscience" wrote...
> The newest question that was proposed to me today was the concern with
> the grounding of the current with the incredibly sandy soil that will
> be in the area. Will that grounding rod have to be dug out around and
> filled with a more dense soil mixture in order for it to work
> accordingly?
How will having denser soil make a difference? Are you expecting large air
pockets in the soil? Looks like you haven't a clue when it comes to the
concept of grounding and wiring. Do yourself a favor and hire a
professional.
|
|
|
|
|