|
| On Mar 11, 12:52 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> 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.
Again Bud's links demonstrate his problem. Bud selectively quotes
to promote propaganda. But everyone who does this professionally says
earthing provides the protection. It is obvious. Surge energy must
be dissipated somewhere. Professionals - and all of Bud's citations -
say surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly in earth. Bud spins a
lie that only Rush Limbaugh could love.
How does Bud avoid reality? He quotes selectively. He says a plug-
in protector 'clamps'. He conveniently forgets that 'clamping to
nothing' means surge energy still must be dissipated somewhere. Surge
energy gets dissipated inside the grossly undersized plug-in protector
(ie 'scary pictures') or surge energy gets dissipated 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent appliance (ie Page 42 Figure 8).
How convenient. Even Martzloff says surge energy must be earthed. So
Bud routinely forgets to mention it.
A protector without earthing provides protection by making energy
'magically disappear'. Instead, what does a responsible source
discuss in two front page articles in EE Times article entitled
"Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients"? Earth
ground. Bud says protectors don't need earthing. Bud says protectors
can "clamp to nothing".
What does the Atlanta Scientific require for protection of their
electronics?
> Surge protection devices should ideally operate instantaneously
> to divert a surge current to ground with no residual
> common-mode voltage presented at the equipment terminals.
What does the industry professional state in "Proper Copper
Grounding Systems Stops Lightning Damage at Nebraska FM Station"?
> It is absolutely imperative that all surge suppressors be grounded.
What does Bud's above cited NIST article say on page 17 (Adobe
page19 of 24)?
> A very important point to keep in mind is that your
> surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
> ground. The best surge protection in the world can
> be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Bud ignores Page 17. Bud routinely quotes selectively - pretends
page 17 does not exist. Bud pretends earthing required by Martzloff,
instead, is not required by Martzloff. Bud promotes plug-in
protectors. He is so dishonest as to even not admit it.
No wonder high reliability facilities (ie a telco CO) do not use
Bud's grossly undersized and obscenely profitable protection.
Instead, they use the well proven, 100 year old technology: earth
ground provides protection no matter how many times Bud denies it.
Bud is so dishonest that to not even provide a manufacturer spec for
his complete 'magic box' protector. The plug-in protector alone is
sufficient for protection? Bud says that. But even the manufacturer
will not make that claim. Bud never provides a single manufacturer
spec that claims protection. How many times has he been asked? 400?
Bud cannot provide what even the manufacturer will not claim.
..
What does the informed human learn? Protector is only as effective
as its earth ground. How to obtain better protection even in least
conductive soils? Upgrade the earthing. Why would lightning stike
poorly conductive soils. Because low conductive soils are
sufficiently conductive to lightning - the most destructive of
surges. Why does lightning routinely strike munitions lockers without
explosion? Proper earthing even in low conductive soils means no
damage to electronics and no munitions explosions. Protectors also
are only as effective as that single point earth ground. Provided
previously and never by Bud are superior earthing solutions routinely
installed so that surges do not cause damage.
|
|