|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > March 2008 > Re: Surges
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]
|
|
|
| On Mar 9, 2:44 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> From Martzloff:
> Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Facts that Bud routinely ignores to post half truths. From
Martzlofff:
> Conclusion:
> 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
> show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
> even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
> present at the point of connection of appliances.
Plug-in (point of use) protector can also contribute to damage of an
appliance. The author notes the easiest solution may also create the
appliance damage (also on Page 42 Figure 8). Bud forgets to mention
that part. No earth ground means no effective protection -
especially from the type of surge that typically harms household
appliances. Informed homeowners instead install the less expensive and
effectve solution - one 'whole house' protector. Don't waste money on
protectors that can even create 'scary pictures'.
An effective protector does not "clamp to nothing". An effective
protector dissipates that surge energy in earth. Again Bud refuses to
provide any plug-in manufacturer spec for protection. Bud's 'magic
boxes' do not provide protection from the typically destructive surge;
do not even claim to provide that protection. A long list of facts
that Bud must deny or ignore to promote obscenely overpriced plug-in
protectors.
What earths the typically destructive surge? A protector with a
short connection to earth ground. Then protection inside every
appliance is not overwhelmed. Every source including Martzloff makes
that point. Bud posts half facts to advocate his 'magic box'
solution: "clamping to nothing".
Bud always resorts to insults. My troll does this routinely. Bud
insults when he cannot contradict reality. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. No earth ground means no effective
protection.
| |
| billb@abc.net 2008-03-09, 5:25 pm |
| You are all spending time talking surge suppression systems and are ignoring
one very important fact. The effectiveness of any grounding system is
dependent the soil in which the grounding rod is placed. The electrical
resistivity of the soil, can vary depending on the soil type and water
content.
In the past I have visited sites where the only way to get any effective
grounding was by watering the grounding rod once per week.
Without an effective grounding rod you can forget about the surge
suppression system from whatever source the surge may come.
BillB
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-10, 3:25 am |
| On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:16:38 GMT billb@abc.net wrote:
| You are all spending time talking surge suppression systems and are ignoring
Actually, no they are not. They are just having a game of bashing each
other over the head and calling it a surge.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-09-2156@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| w_tom wrote:
> On Mar 9, 4:16 pm, bi...@abc.net wrote:
..
..
You may have come in late. I have recommended a guide on surges and
surge suppression from the IEEE at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/L...sion_May051.pdf
And a simpler one from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/...s/surgesfnl.pdf
The IEEE guide has as basic protection elements:
1 earthing the ground reference for incoming wires
- required for all systems
2 short interconnection between ground references for incoming power and
signal wires
- required where possible; sometimes signal entry is too far
from power
3 surge suppressor at the power service (in the US there are basic entry
protectors for signal)
- use where appropriate, like high lightning areas
4 plug–in suppressors at sensitive equipment
- use where appropriate like sensitive electronics with power
and signal connections
I agree with the guide on all 4 points.
w_ agrees with the guide on number #1 and #3.
For #2 w_ wants signal entry protectors connected directly to the
grounding electrodes instead of short connection to the earthing wire at
the power service. That may compromise keeping the ground references at
the same potential. Martzloff has written "the impedance of the
grounding system to `true earth' is far less important than the
integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."
Both guides emphasize a major source of damage is high voltage between
ground references, and that short interconnect is very important. (Else,
the IEEE guide says if there is not a short interconnect wire "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
protector.") If you have a relatively modest 1000A surge to earth and a
very good 10 ohms system-to-earth impedance the ground reference will
rise 10,000V above ‘absolute’ earth potential. All ground references
must rise together. I wrote about this in several posts earlier in the
thread.
w_ disagrees with #4 and says plug-in suppressors do not work. That is
based on his belief that suppression must use earthing. The IEEE guide
explains plug-in suppressors work by clamping the voltage on all wires
to the common ground at the suppressor, and that earthing occurs
elsewhere in the system. (guide starting pdf page 40).
It is disagreement with w_’s denial that plug-in suppressors work that
you see this far down in the thread.
..[color=darkred]
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is a
> problem for plug-in protectors that have no earthing connection.
..
And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.
The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The question is
whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides
say plug-in suppressors are effective.
w_ has *still* never posted a link to another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.
And poor w_ still can't answer:
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 2ed?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?
- 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]."
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
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.
--
bud--
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-10, 8:25 pm |
| On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:22 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| For #2 w_ wants signal entry protectors connected directly to the
| grounding electrodes instead of short connection to the earthing wire at
| the power service. That may compromise keeping the ground references at
| the same potential. Martzloff has written "the impedance of the
| grounding system to `true earth' is far less important than the
| integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."
| Both guides emphasize a major source of damage is high voltage between
| ground references, and that short interconnect is very important. (Else,
| the IEEE guide says if there is not a short interconnect wire "the only
| effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
| protector.") If you have a relatively modest 1000A surge to earth and a
| very good 10 ohms system-to-earth impedance the ground reference will
| rise 10,000V above ?absolute? earth potential. All ground references
| must rise together. I wrote about this in several posts earlier in the
| thread.
For low frequency surge energy, keeping things at the same potential
is more critical, and that strongly suggests a short "intergrounding".
For high frequency surge energy, the short interconnect can let such
energy across from one wiring to another. High frequency surge energy
can then cause damage to sensitive electronics as a result.
One way to deal with this is to have a type of surge suppression that
can trap out the high frequency energy. That way you can have the
short "intergrounding" without much of the risk. Whether that high
frequency blocking (which also needs a diversion path) should be
before the "intergrounding", after the "intergrounding", or later at
the point of use, needs to be considered. Some (but far too few)
point of user suppressors include such protection.
One thing I would NOT recommend is that "intergrounding" itself be made
to block high frequency energy. To do so would require supplementary
paths to ground for the high frequency energy, which would create loops
in the system.
"All ground references must rise together." ... yes, but ... they must
also not rise too fast, or the propogation of the rise will, by itself,
cause damage, especially on wiring that is designed for carrying high
frequency signals (twisted pair can reach 1 GHz and coax can go well
beyond that).
| w_ disagrees with #4 and says plug-in suppressors do not work. That is
| based on his belief that suppression must use earthing. The IEEE guide
| explains plug-in suppressors work by clamping the voltage on all wires
| to the common ground at the suppressor, and that earthing occurs
| elsewhere in the system. (guide starting pdf page 40).
They have their uses. But they are supplemental. They are not able to
do much with a common mode surge on all conductors. I would not have
them separately earthed, however, because of the differential ground
potential issue.
| It is disagreement with w_?s denial that plug-in suppressors work that
| you see this far down in the thread.
Just do not assume they are going to be as effective as a well designed
whole building entrance based surge protection system.
| And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.
| The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The question is
| whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides
| say plug-in suppressors are effective.
But not nearly as much as a central system. OTOH, some surges can be
induced after the central system, so I would not do without point of
use protection, either. FYI, I have seen damage on UNPLUGGED equipment
due to an induced surge.
| Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work.
| Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
They are effective for some types of surges and not effective for some
other types of surges. Some protectors are better than others. They
should not be considered a complete or maximal level of protection.
They should be used as part of a complete system of protection that
also includes a well designed service entrance protection.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-10-1229@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:22 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>
> | For #2 w_ wants signal entry protectors connected directly to the
> | grounding electrodes instead of short connection to the earthing wire at
> | the power service. That may compromise keeping the ground references at
> | the same potential. Martzloff has written "the impedance of the
> | grounding system to `true earth' is far less important than the
> | integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."
> | Both guides emphasize a major source of damage is high voltage between
> | ground references, and that short interconnect is very important. (Else,
> | the IEEE guide says if there is not a short interconnect wire "the only
> | effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
> | protector.") If you have a relatively modest 1000A surge to earth and a
> | very good 10 ohms system-to-earth impedance the ground reference will
> | rise 10,000V above ?absolute? earth potential. All ground references
> | must rise together. I wrote about this in several posts earlier in the
> | thread.
>
> For low frequency surge energy, keeping things at the same potential
> is more critical, and that strongly suggests a short "intergrounding".
>
> For high frequency surge energy, the short interconnect can let such
> energy across from one wiring to another. High frequency surge energy
> can then cause damage to sensitive electronics as a result.
..
Both guides emphasize short interconnection. None of the six EEs what
wrote the 2 guides indicates a problem. But they all probably had a
hidden agenda like Martzloff.
The EEs at the IEEE that peer reviewed the IEEE guide didn’t see a
problem. They probably had a hidden agenda too.
Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited
transmission line characteristics. They don’t, as I previously posted
(ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
w_’s link at
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArt...cleID=201807127
doesn’t see much RF energy in a surge. Thee author probably has a hidden
agenda also.
You have posted no link to a source that agrees with you. There is no
common science on which to base further conversation.
You seem to have an i problem.
..
> | w_ disagrees with #4 and says plug-in suppressors do not work. That is
> | based on his belief that suppression must use earthing. The IEEE guide
> | explains plug-in suppressors work by clamping the voltage on all wires
> | to the common ground at the suppressor, and that earthing occurs
> | elsewhere in the system. (guide starting pdf page 40).
>
> They have their uses. But they are supplemental.
> They are not able to
> do much with a common mode surge on all conductors.
..
None of the 6 EEs that wrote the 2 guides agree with you. (But they all
had a hidden agenda.) The specific example of suppression with a plug-in
suppressor in the IEEE guide (which you probably haven’t read) was for a
common mode surge. You have no links that agree with you.
--
bud--
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-11, 8:25 pm |
| On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:22 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|>
|> | For #2 w_ wants signal entry protectors connected directly to the
|> | grounding electrodes instead of short connection to the earthing wire at
|> | the power service. That may compromise keeping the ground references at
|> | the same potential. Martzloff has written "the impedance of the
|> | grounding system to `true earth' is far less important than the
|> | integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."
|> | Both guides emphasize a major source of damage is high voltage between
|> | ground references, and that short interconnect is very important. (Else,
|> | the IEEE guide says if there is not a short interconnect wire "the only
|> | effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
|> | protector.") If you have a relatively modest 1000A surge to earth and a
|> | very good 10 ohms system-to-earth impedance the ground reference will
|> | rise 10,000V above ?absolute? earth potential. All ground references
|> | must rise together. I wrote about this in several posts earlier in the
|> | thread.
|>
|> For low frequency surge energy, keeping things at the same potential
|> is more critical, and that strongly suggests a short "intergrounding".
|>
|> For high frequency surge energy, the short interconnect can let such
|> energy across from one wiring to another. High frequency surge energy
|> can then cause damage to sensitive electronics as a result.
| .
| Both guides emphasize short interconnection. None of the six EEs what
| wrote the 2 guides indicates a problem. But they all probably had a
| hidden agenda like Martzloff.
You need to divert the high frequency energy to somewhere. If the only
path to ground is via the interconnect, then it has to be short. If the
energy were ONLY LOW frequency, then each system taking its own conductor
to the grounding electrodes would be sufficient, as long as the conductors
are sufficiently large to avoid a big voltage drop.
But high frequency energy is a reality, even if people like Martzloff are
trying to deny it. Maybe his agenda is to avoid having to give a very
complex description of _why_ to do as he suggests (afterall, the general
public doesn't understand things like frequency of wave energy).
The short interconnection is the way to go, because the other choices
do not have any easy way to mitigate their issues. At least with a short
interconnection, you can still prevent high frequency energy from going
to the appliance devices by having appropriate inductance in the path, or
adding supplemental capacitive grounding, or both.
| The EEs at the IEEE that peer reviewed the IEEE guide didn?t see a
| problem. They probably had a hidden agenda too.
|
| Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited
| transmission line characteristics. They don?t, as I previously posted
| (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission
line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how,
in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as
a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is
stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient.
It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line.
Summary: all wiring has transmission line characteristics of some form
| You have posted no link to a source that agrees with you. There is no
| common science on which to base further conversation.
Then I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.
| None of the 6 EEs that wrote the 2 guides agree with you. (But they all
| had a hidden agenda.) The specific example of suppression with a plug-in
| suppressor in the IEEE guide (which you probably haven?t read) was for a
| common mode surge. You have no links that agree with you.
Where do you think the energy of a common mode surge goes, when it proceeds
down a branch circuit (whether that is a branch of power, telephone, or TV
coax), and reaches a point of use surge protector?
If it is telephone or coax, and the protector is connected to a power circuit
where it sink the energy, then that is certainly a direction the energy can
go. But if the common mode surge is arriving on the power circuit, where
would it go from there? When you send it over the telephone or coax wiring?
The best you can hope for on a common mode power circuit surge is to send it
backwards the way it came in. To do that you MUST have something that will
appear to be a high impedance to the surge, while not being so to the power
you want to pass through to the protected device. Or better yet, don't allow
the high frequency to propogate to the branch circuits in the first place.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-11-1727@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| w_tom wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:52 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> Again Bud's links demonstrate his problem. Bud selectively quotes
> to promote propaganda.
..
Poor w_’s religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that
conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.
Like from Martzloff:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."
And from Martzloff:
"Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
[electronic equipment] within the house."
And from Martzloff:
Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
What did Martzloff mean w_? Never explained.
w_ just keeps repeating the same lies - a la Goebbels.
Still *never* a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
And poor w_ still can't answer:
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 2ed?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
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.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
| |
|
| w_tom wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:52 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> Rush Limbaugh does the same thing to deny reality - to promote an
> agenda. Let's see. Both 'top of the front page' articles in EE Times
> (a trade rag for Electrical Engineers - not for Bud) published on 1
> Oct 2007 and 8 Oct 2007 ... accoring to Bud they have a hidden
> agenda. But again, Bud spins a myth to promote plug-in protectors. I
> am sorry to admit that my troll is not known for honesty.
..
If w_ wasn’t such an idiot he would see that I was using the article as
a valid source of information. I guess w_ doesn’t know what sarcasm is.
--
bud--
| |
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
..
> | Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited
> | transmission line characteristics. They don?t, as I previously posted
> | (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
>
> If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission
> line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how,
> in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as
> a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is
> stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient.
> It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line.
..
It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was
investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line
characteristics *for surges*. They don’t. (But Martzloff had a hidden
agenda.)
..
> | You have posted no link to a source that agrees with you. There is no
> | common science on which to base further conversation.
>
> Then I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.
..
You still have no sources for your version of “physics” of surges. What
a surprise. I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.
--
bud--
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-12, 5:25 pm |
| On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:42:51 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| .
|> | Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited
|> | transmission line characteristics. They don?t, as I previously posted
|> | (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
|>
|> If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission
|> line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how,
|> in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as
|> a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is
|> stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient.
|> It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line.
| .
| It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was
| investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line
| characteristics *for surges*. They don?t. (But Martzloff had a hidden
| agenda.)
Then he flubbed the experiment. Is *HE* willing to disclose how he did
the experiment? I can't be specific in challenging his errors if I do
not know what it is he did. I can only challenge him in general.
|> | You have posted no link to a source that agrees with you. There is no
|> | common science on which to base further conversation.
|>
|> Then I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.
| .
| You still have no sources for your version of ?physics? of surges. What
| a surprise. I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.
My sources for physics are college classes I have taken, as well as other
readings in the past. Physics is one of my areas of understanding. I do
not know all areas of physics, but I do know transmission lines. I do know
an NM cable is a transmission line. It is not necessarily an ideal one.
It has some rather low impedance (due to close conductor distance relative
to conductor radius). It isn't constructed to have a uniform impedance.
That can result in greater losses at higher frequencies due to reflections
resulting in a reduced, and non-flat, response function. But it still is
a transmission line; it just isn't an optimal one.
I could tell you how to construct a cable with AWG #14 or #12 or #10 wires
that would behave well as a 300-ohm (characteristic impedance) transmission
line. I don't remember the formula off the top of my head, but I know where
to find it. But if you know about transmission lines, you could find it
just as easily.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-12-1618@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| w_tom wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:38 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> Again Bud uses insults as technical proof.
..
OK, I concede to w_ on the point I made above. w_'s source is invalid.
..
> A surge
> protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
Poor w_ clings to his religious belief in earthing.
But he can’t explain why Martzloff said:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."
And:
"Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
[electronic equipment] within the house."
And:
"Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
w_ just keeps repeating the same lies - a la Goebbels.
Still *never* a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
And poor w_ still can't answer:
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 2ed?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
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.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
| |
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:42:51 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> | .
> |> | Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited
> |> | transmission line characteristics. They don't, as I previously posted
> |> | (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
> |>
> |> If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission
> |> line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how,
> |> in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as
> |> a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is
> |> stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient.
> |> It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line.
> | .
> | It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was
> | investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line
> | characteristics *for surges*. They don't. (But Martzloff had a hidden
> | agenda.)
>
> Then he flubbed the experiment. Is *HE* willing to disclose how he did
> the experiment? I can't be specific in challenging his errors if I do
> not know what it is he did. I can only challenge him in general.
..
One source (not the only one) is:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/s...tion%201983.pdf
This is a technical paper published by the IEEE.
On transmission line behavior Martzloff writes:
"From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
classical transmission line behavior."
Houses don't have 200 meter branch circuits. In addition, the 1.2us rise
time Martzloff used is not likely. The source impedance of wiring from
the point-of-strike to a house attenuates the highest frequency
components and gives a slower rise. The typical test surge, IIRC, is
8/20. That would require a much longer branch circuit.
----------------------------
Martzloff also writes:
"Will the impinging surge be in the normal mode (black to white) or in
the common mode ([black-and-white-to-green)?"
This is not your definition of a common mode surge (but it is my
definition).
Martzloff shows using 1-3 MOVs at the end of a branch circuit for surge
suppression. He indicates none of the problems you say exist.
None of the 6 experienced EEs who wrote the guides agrees with you. (But
they all probably had a hidden agenda.)
Where are your sources???
..
> |> | You have posted no link to a source that agrees with you. There is no
> |> | common science on which to base further conversation.
> |>
> |> Then I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.
> | .
> | You still have no sources for your version of 'physics' of surges. What
> | a surprise. I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.
>
> My sources for physics are college classes I have taken, as well as other
> readings in the past. Physics is one of my areas of understanding.
..
Apparently no degree in EE but you can accuse a respected electrical
engineer, who has many published papers on surges and protection, of
having a hidden agenda.
..
> I do
> not know all areas of physics, but I do know transmission lines.
..
"If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?"
--
bud--
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-13, 8:25 pm |
| On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:17:08 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:42:51 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|> | .
|> |> | Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited
|> |> | transmission line characteristics. They don't, as I previously posted
|> |> | (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
|> |>
|> |> If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission
|> |> line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how,
|> |> in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as
|> |> a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is
|> |> stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient.
|> |> It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line.
|> | .
|> | It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was
|> | investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line
|> | characteristics *for surges*. They don't. (But Martzloff had a hidden
|> | agenda.)
|>
|> Then he flubbed the experiment. Is *HE* willing to disclose how he did
|> the experiment? I can't be specific in challenging his errors if I do
|> not know what it is he did. I can only challenge him in general.
| .
| One source (not the only one) is:
| http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/s...tion%201983.pdf
| This is a technical paper published by the IEEE.
He dismisses "short pulses" without an explanation of why. Maybe it could
be that agenda thing?
He doesn't even address fast rise edge transitions.
| On transmission line behavior Martzloff writes:
| "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
| often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
| systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
| concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
| the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
| the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
| classical transmission line behavior."
He is already assuming a slow rise impulse. This isn't applicable to the
points I raised.
| Houses don't have 200 meter branch circuits. In addition, the 1.2us rise
| time Martzloff used is not likely. The source impedance of wiring from
| the point-of-strike to a house attenuates the highest frequency
| components and gives a slower rise. The typical test surge, IIRC, is
| 8/20. That would require a much longer branch circuit.
"Houses don't have 200 meter branch circuits" ... certainly no _normal_
house would have anything close to that. OTOH, if they did, they would
not have so much of an issue with surges as that long wiring would work
in favor of attenuating the short rise pulses and edges that Martzloff
so conveniently dismisses.
| ----------------------------
| Martzloff also writes:
| "Will the impinging surge be in the normal mode (black to white) or in
| the common mode ([black-and-white-to-green)?"
| This is not your definition of a common mode surge (but it is my
| definition).
Definitions of modes is, in part, a word game. There are many modes that
can actually happen. They can all be described in terms of a combination
of differential and common mode. The term "normal" might be a custom in
this field of engineering, but it is a term within inherint meaning.
| Martzloff shows using 1-3 MOVs at the end of a branch circuit for surge
| suppression. He indicates none of the problems you say exist.
Because in the remainder of this paper he isn't addressing them. He is
addressing the slow rise impulses up to make a few hundred kHz equivalent
frequency.
| None of the 6 experienced EEs who wrote the guides agrees with you. (But
| they all probably had a hidden agenda.)
Either the hidden agenda, or maybe just a lack of interest in their part
to explore the field of fast rise time pulses and edge transitions.
| Where are your sources???
Where are YOURS? You "came to a gun fight with a knife". Your evidence
doesn't even deal with fast rise time issues.
|> My sources for physics are college classes I have taken, as well as other
|> readings in the past. Physics is one of my areas of understanding.
| .
| Apparently no degree in EE but you can accuse a respected electrical
| engineer, who has many published papers on surges and protection, of
| having a hidden agenda.
You seem to be a good source of his papers. Maybe you've read many others.
If so, maybe you would do better than I at finding what he has written on
fast rise time issues (as opposed to the paper you offered that did not).
Or maybe he hasn't written any. Maybe his "hidden agenda" is merely his
interest in researching low rise time impulses (after all, they do happen
more often then fast rise time impulses, which generally require a direct
strike on the service drop).
FYI, I'm talking about rise times on the order of 1000 volts per NANOsecond
or faster.
|> not know all areas of physics, but I do know transmission lines.
| .
| "If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?"
Pounding a screw into wood might not be very efficient, but it can get the
screw into the wood.
A fast rise impulse/edge might not propogate on NM as well as it would on
TV twin-lead, but it can still have significant damaging energy at the far
end. Remember, normal houses don't have 200 meter branch circuits.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-13-1859@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| w_tom wrote:
> On Mar 13, 3:17 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> Then we include the entire circuit. It's not just the branch
> circuit. Wires down the street and maybe three miles of electrical
> (plasma) connectors to the cloud. Maybe even four miles of conductor
> through the earth. Surges are an electrical circuit from cloud
> through house and earth. That circuit would be a more than 0.15
> miles.
..
Instead of embarrassing yourself with a whole new set of inanities maybe
you could stick to the simpler stuff.
Like - why did Martzloff say:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."
And:
"Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
[electronic equipment] within the house."
And:
"Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
And where is your link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
And answers to simple questions:
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 2ed?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
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.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
| |
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:17:08 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:42:51 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> |> |> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> |> | .
> |> |> | Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited
> |> |> | transmission line characteristics. They don't, as I previously posted
> |> |> | (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
> |> |>
> |> |> If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission
> |> |> line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how,
> |> |> in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as
> |> |> a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is
> |> |> stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient.
> |> |> It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line.
> |> | .
> |> | It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was
> |> | investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line
> |> | characteristics *for surges*. They don't. (But Martzloff had a hidden
> |> | agenda.)
> |>
> |> Then he flubbed the experiment. Is *HE* willing to disclose how he did
> |> the experiment? I can't be specific in challenging his errors if I do
> |> not know what it is he did. I can only challenge him in general.
> | .
> | One source (not the only one) is:
> | http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/s...tion%201983.pdf
> | This is a technical paper published by the IEEE.
> | On transmission line behavior Martzloff writes:
> | "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
> | often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
> | systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
> | concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
> | the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
> | the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
> | classical transmission line behavior."
>
> He is already assuming a slow rise impulse. This isn't applicable to the
> points I raised.
..
Because the points you raised are not relevant to real world surges.
..
> | ----------------------------
> | Martzloff also writes:
> | "Will the impinging surge be in the normal mode (black to white) or in
> | the common mode ([black-and-white-to-green)?"
> | This is not your definition of a common mode surge (but it is my
> | definition).
>
> Definitions of modes is, in part, a word game.
..
A word game for you - the "physics of phil". Not for engineers. This is
an engineering newsgroup.
..
> |> My sources for physics are college classes I have taken, as well as other
> |> readings in the past. Physics is one of my areas of understanding.
> | .
> | Apparently no degree in EE but you can accuse a respected electrical
> | engineer, who has many published papers on surges and protection, of
> | having a hidden agenda.
>
> You seem to be a good source of his papers. Maybe you've read many others.
> If so, maybe you would do better than I at finding what he has written on
> fast rise time issues (as opposed to the paper you offered that did not).
..
Martzloff, and others, are interested in science that applies to the
real world.
..
> Maybe his "hidden agenda" is merely his
> interest in researching low rise time impulses (after all, they do happen
> more often then fast rise time impulses, which generally require a direct
> strike on the service drop).
..
So the hidden agenda of the 6 EE authors is that they are interested in
real world surges. Martzloff has a paper on a direct strike to the
primary on a power pole behind a house. The estimated average
probability of a surge more severe is 1 in 8000 years. You are
interested in events that take place at a house less than once in 8000
years. Real useful.
But Martzloff also has a paper on a lightning strike to the neutral at
the service drop-to-riser connection. No mention of transmission line
effects. Must be another hidden agenda (his third one?)
..
> FYI, I'm talking about rise times on the order of 1000 volts per NANOsecond
> or faster.
..
Martzloff deals in real world surges. Real world investigations have
determined what real world surges look like. Martzloff has used surges
from IEEE standards in his investigations.
Really sounds like your post is a CYA attempt. In any case, you have
still given no sources. Including no sources for nanosecond rise times.
I have furnished at least 3. You dismiss them because they do not
apply to lala land where you reside. I am only interested in physics for
the real world.
--
bud--
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-14, 9:25 am |
| On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:53:52 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:17:08 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:42:51 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|> |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> |> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
|> |> | .
|> |> |> | Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited
|> |> |> | transmission line characteristics. They don't, as I previously posted
|> |> |> | (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
|> |> |>
|> |> |> If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission
|> |> |> line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how,
|> |> |> in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as
|> |> |> a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is
|> |> |> stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient.
|> |> |> It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line.
|> |> | .
|> |> | It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was
|> |> | investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line
|> |> | characteristics *for surges*. They don't. (But Martzloff had a hidden
|> |> | agenda.)
|> |>
|> |> Then he flubbed the experiment. Is *HE* willing to disclose how he did
|> |> the experiment? I can't be specific in challenging his errors if I do
|> |> not know what it is he did. I can only challenge him in general.
|> | .
|> | One source (not the only one) is:
|> | http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/s...tion%201983.pdf
|> | This is a technical paper published by the IEEE.
|> | On transmission line behavior Martzloff writes:
|> | "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
|> | often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
|> | systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
|> | concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
|> | the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
|> | the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
|> | classical transmission line behavior."
|>
|> He is already assuming a slow rise impulse. This isn't applicable to the
|> points I raised.
| .
| Because the points you raised are not relevant to real world surges.
And you didn't have a Martzloff quote/source for this absurd statement?
|> | ----------------------------
|> | Martzloff also writes:
|> | "Will the impinging surge be in the normal mode (black to white) or in
|> | the common mode ([black-and-white-to-green)?"
|> | This is not your definition of a common mode surge (but it is my
|> | definition).
|>
|> Definitions of modes is, in part, a word game.
| .
| A word game for you - the "physics of phil". Not for engineers. This is
| an engineering newsgroup.
Maybe your special brand of engineering ignores sciences like physics.
|> |> My sources for physics are college classes I have taken, as well as other
|> |> readings in the past. Physics is one of my areas of understanding.
|> | .
|> | Apparently no degree in EE but you can accuse a respected electrical
|> | engineer, who has many published papers on surges and protection, of
|> | having a hidden agenda.
|>
|> You seem to be a good source of his papers. Maybe you've read many others.
|> If so, maybe you would do better than I at finding what he has written on
|> fast rise time issues (as opposed to the paper you offered that did not).
| .
| Martzloff, and others, are interested in science that applies to the
| real world.
And you've never seen a surge event involving a high rise transient?
I have ... twice. And they make up 1/3 of surge events I have witnessed.
|> Maybe his "hidden agenda" is merely his
|> interest in researching low rise time impulses (after all, they do happen
|> more often then fast rise time impulses, which generally require a direct
|> strike on the service drop).
| .
| So the hidden agenda of the 6 EE authors is that they are interested in
| real world surges. Martzloff has a paper on a direct strike to the
| primary on a power pole behind a house. The estimated average
| probability of a surge more severe is 1 in 8000 years. You are
| interested in events that take place at a house less than once in 8000
| years. Real useful.
|
| But Martzloff also has a paper on a lightning strike to the neutral at
| the service drop-to-riser connection. No mention of transmission line
| effects. Must be another hidden agenda (his third one?)
Why don't you write to him and ask him why it is he omits transmission
line effects? While writing, ask him how much line inductance is needed
to bring a direct strike into the the slow rise time ranges he studies.
|> FYI, I'm talking about rise times on the order of 1000 volts per NANOsecond
|> or faster.
| .
| Martzloff deals in real world surges. Real world investigations have
| determined what real world surges look like. Martzloff has used surges
| from IEEE standards in his investigations.
They've missed a lot of reality.
| Really sounds like your post is a CYA attempt. In any case, you have
| still given no sources. Including no sources for nanosecond rise times.
| I have furnished at least 3. You dismiss them because they do not
| apply to lala land where you reside. I am only interested in physics for
| the real world.
I'm not currently studying this, so I have no sources right here. I did
that kind of study around 25 years ago. I've confirmed it with some real
world experiences seeing events that consist of either only high rise time
or events that are apparently a combination (yes, you can have both at the
same time, too).
To provide sources now, I'd have to spend the time to dig it up. But you
are not worth that effort. I'm only arguing it now because it is brought
up now. So if you want, you can skip offering any sources about real life
lightning transient curves, and it can just be the two of us arguing, as
this doesn't take much of my time.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-14-0812@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-14, 8:25 pm |
| On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:36:10 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:
| A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even contribute to
| adjacent appliance. Damage also demonstrated by another Bud source.
| Page 42 Figure 8: surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through
| the adjacent TV. Plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too
| far from earth ground. No wonder that protector recommended by Bud
| does not even claim to provide protection. A protector is only as
| effective as its earth ground. Every responsible facility connects an
| even better earth ground, short (ie less than 10 feet), to their
| protectors AND don't use plug-in protectors promoted by Bud.
In the case of the protector being attached to something other than the
power branch circuit, that certainly can shift the surge from the other
wiring (antenna lead, cable TV, telephone, etc) to the power wiring, and
on into other appliances near there on the same circuit. It can also
put the surge back on the panel, but if it is the main panel, at least
it has a better path to ground there. As part of an overall good design
strategy for surge protection, point of use protectors do help reduce
the risk of damage from a surge. But in cases where the whole system is
not properly designed, then these protectors (and even some other things
otherwise intended to protect) can actually cause more harm. The key is
to design the whole system right. Then these protectors can supplement
that protection for the few things a whole house system cannot catch.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-14-1907@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:53:52 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
> |> FYI, I'm talking about rise times on the order of 1000 volts per NANOsecond
> |> or faster.
> | .
> | Martzloff deals in real world surges. Real world investigations have
> | determined what real world surges look like. Martzloff has used surges
> | from IEEE standards in his investigations.
>
> They've missed a lot of reality.
..
So to sum up:
Misuse of "common mode surge" - it is just a "word game".
Lack of any coverage of 'fast transients' by 6 EEs experienced in surges
and surge suppression, and in the IEEE standards that define surge
testing - "They've missed a lot of reality."
Expert engineer in field says branch circuits don’t exhibit transmission
line effects - the expert doesn’t understand (perhaps another hidden
agenda).
Total lack of sources - I studied it 25 years ago.
Apparently the only expert is phil (in phil's mind).
You are educated beyond your intelligence. Maybe at one of those schools
where multiple realities are equally valid.
You have a bright, but alas short, future as a science advisor in the
Bush administration. You can join w_ there.
--
bud--
| |
|
| w_tom wrote:
>
> Then Martzloff provides the bottom line conclusion that Bud must
> ignore - otherwise profits will be at risk:
..
Ho-hum. The village idiot again omits what Martzloff really wrote about
plug-in suppressors in that technical paper:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."
And poor w_ still hasn’t explained why Martzloff wrote:
"Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
[electronic equipment] within the house."
And:
"Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
And still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective. w_ can’t even find one source that agrees that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective????
And no answers to simple questions:
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 2ed?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
Why no answers w_???
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.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-15, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:25:48 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:
| Problems with point of use protectors: First, if the major surge is
| not earthed before entering a building, then the plug-in protector can
| contribute to appliance damage - make that damage easier. Unlike Bud,
Yes. That's why, by themselves, point of use protectors don't do much
good and can actually make things worse.
| Without the 'whole house' solution, plug-in protectors can do more
| damage. Bud says plug-in protectors alone are sufficient protection.
For the most part they are a shunt device ... they shunt the surge energy
over to somewhere else. If that somewhere else isn't ground, guess what.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-15-1508@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-15, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:59:48 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| Ho-hum. The village idiot again omits what Martzloff really wrote about
| plug-in suppressors in that technical paper:
| "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
| in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
| plug-in surge suppressor]."
And just what does Martzloff think happens to the surge energy? Does he
think it is just destroyed and ceases to exist?
| And poor w_ still hasn?t explained why Martzloff wrote:
Really, I think it should be your responsibility to explain Martzloff
since you're the one always promoting him.
| "Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
| entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
| [electronic equipment] within the house."
| And:
| "Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Easiest does not imply right.
But if the whole house protection is present, mosts of the problems a
point of use protector could have won't come to it in the first place.
| And still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
| NOT effective. w_ can?t even find one source that agrees that plug-in
| suppressors are NOT effective????
What good are links?
I have no interest in links to any comments by anyone that cannot explain
WHY they think things are the way they are.
And how often does Martzloff provide links to other lunatics?
Point of use protectors can, by themselves without any whole house surge
protection, in some cases, have a benefit. But in some other cases they
can make things worse. However, when the whole house surge protection is
present, the set of cases where point of use protection causes problems
becomes a much smaller set.
| - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
| suppressors?
Did they ALSO have whole house protection at the same time?
| - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
| IEEE example, pdf page 42?
The IEEE didn't explain that in their document?
| Why no answers w_???
Maybe because he didn't write the document. IEEE did. Ask them.
| Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work.
There are cases where all three scenarios can be:
1. They work and provide protection.
2. They have no effect.
3. They make things worse.
| For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
| suppressors are effective.
But they do NOT explain why. And bud seems to always think w_tom could
explain why IEEE and NIST wrote these things.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-15-1515@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-15, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:57:46 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| So to sum up:
|
| Misuse of "common mode surge" - it is just a "word game".
It is not clear what your meaning is. Are you claiming that there is no
such thing as a "common mode surge"?
| Lack of any coverage of 'fast transients' by 6 EEs experienced in surges
| and surge suppression, and in the IEEE standards that define surge
| testing - "They've missed a lot of reality."
|
| Expert engineer in field says branch circuits don?t exhibit transmission
| line effects - the expert doesn?t understand (perhaps another hidden
| agenda).
All conductors have transmission line effects. But at low frequencies
where the transmission line length is a small fraction of the wavelength,
these transmission line effects are insignificant. The distinction is
the frequency.
| Total lack of sources - I studied it 25 years ago.
Did you study what makes a transmission line a transmission line?
| Apparently the only expert is phil (in phil's mind).
6 EE's that ignore the fast rise time transients that can be clearly
recorded in UHF spectra are certainly no experts of the _whole_ field
of surges. But maybe they have defined "surge" to be a subset of all
the electrical risks that exist from lightning. That might be a lot
easier than having to go bone up on transmission lines.
| You are educated beyond your intelligence. Maybe at one of those schools
| where multiple realities are equally valid.
Which school would that be?
| You have a bright, but alas short, future as a science advisor in the
| Bush administration. You can join w_ there.
It seems all science advisors have short futures in the Bush administration.
Bush is like Bud. Both ignore science in favor of their political agenda.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-15-1527@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
| |
|
| w_tom wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2:59 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
..
>
> Bud is challenged
> repeatedly to cite those numbers. Bud cannot post specifications that
> never exist.
..
Already posted and ignored. And I already told you 3 times that I
already told you.
But w_ doesn’t answer questions:
- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 2ed?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
..
> Honesty is not Bud.
..
Intelligence is not w_.
..
>Bud cannot deny what
> Martzloff says.
..
On the contrary, I agree with Martzloff:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."
And:
"Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
[electronic equipment] within the house."
And:
"Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Why did he write those things w_??? Why don't you answer questions??
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.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
| |
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net 2008-03-16, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:10:09 -0600 bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
| On the contrary, I agree with Martzloff:
| "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
| in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
| plug-in surge suppressor]."
| And:
| "Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
| entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
| [electronic equipment] within the house."
| And:
| "Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
"Easy" does not necessarily mean "best".
| Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work.
That's not bizarre at all. Made as a general statement, that claim is not
true. However, there are CIRCUMSTANCES where a "point of use protectivce
device doubling as a multi-tap power distribution device" can make things
worse. Most of those circumstances would not have this issue if all the
wiring of the house is done correctly and protected by whole house entry
protection. The really bizarre claim: that these devices will always provide
protection in all cases. My bet is that Martzloff is careful to show them
being used in cases where they do provide protection.
| Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
If a source describes 1 or 2 or 3 circumstances where they ARE effective,
do you take that to mean they are effective in all possible circumstances?
I would not do so. My bet is that Martzloff is careful to show them being
used in cases where they do provide protection.
| 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.
He has his errors. But in some postings he has made, he didn't post any.
| For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
| suppressors are effective.
Those papers are not science at all. They are merely a guide to what the
authors believe are examples of solutions. They do not cover every possible
scenario (which may be part of the agenda).
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-03-16-1134@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
|
|
|
|
|