|
Posted by w_tom on October 21, 2007, 1:17 pm
Bud's citations show how a plug-in protector works and why it will
even contribute to damage of the motherboard. In facilities that
require protection (ie your telephone Central Office with a computer
connected to overhead wires all over town), Bud's solution is not
used. They need protection; not enriching a manufacturer. Where
failure is not acceptable, plug-in protectors are not used. Bud's
plug-in protectors do not even claim, with numbers, to provide
protection. The NIST defines how it might work and then warns why
plug-in protectors are not effective:
> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
Bud recommends protectors that don't have effective earthing. That
was even explained in that Electrical Engineering Times article
entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".
Wire has impedance. The 'whole house' protector with a 'less than 10
foot' connection to earth can divert a surge to earth. Where is
lightning energy dissipated? In a protector? Yes, if fire is an
acceptable option. Energy must be dissipated in earth which is why
effective protectors have that short and dedicated earthing
connection.
Bud will avoid ALL discussion about earthing. His protectors have
no effective earthing. A $3 power strip with some $0.10 parts sells
for $25 or $150. With such massive profits, then truth becomes a
victim.
Undersizing makes it even more profitable. Another problem with
protectors that are missing that earthing connection - these 'scary
pictures':
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FIRES.doc
Same reason explains a Boston fire on 28 Sept :
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
"Fire rips through apartment home to college students"
> The two alarm fire engulfed an apartment building on Louis Prang Street.
>The fire was sparked by a surge protector on the second floor.
Ask Bud for specifications that list each type of surge AND numbers
for protection from each surge? Numbers do not exist. When
challenged to provide those numbers, Bud resorted to mockery and
insults. But then profits are at risk.
Bud's two citations both define why plug-in protectors cannot
accomplish what one 'whole house' protector does. So where does the
surge energy get dissipated? In those scary pictures? Effective
protectors dissipate lightning energy harmlessly in earth - without
those scary pictures. Effective protectors make surges irrelevant so
that a protector remains functional and the human never even knew a
surge existed. Just another reason why responsible homeowners instead
earth one 'whole house' protector. Spend less money for superior
protection.
Bud's second citation shows a plug-in protector too far from earth
ground and too close to appliances. Therefore it earths 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. What kind of
protector is that? Ungrounded. That is what Bud promotes. Why does
the article from Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting
Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" not discuss plug-in
protectors? It is about surge protection - not scams. Protection is
completely about earthing.
Plug-in protectors don't have that earthing connection. Plug-in
protectors may be so grossly undersized (to increase profits) as to
even create those 'scary pictures'. Responsible engineering always
require earthing for protection. Your own telco does not use what Bud
recommends for the same reasons. Profits are at risk if you learn why
one 'whole house' protector does so much and costs less money. The
effective solution is a protector with a 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth ground. That's one 'whole house' protector
without risk in those 'scary pictures'.
Distance to the earthing electrode is critical - which is why
Electrical Engineering Times provides a formula for wire impedance.
You need not perform that calculation. One 'whole house' protector
with a 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection means ignoring the
$3000 of plug-in protectors that Bud recommends.
> What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
> They are "the easiest solution".
>
> A second excellent guide on surges and surge protection from the IEEE is
at:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
> The IEEE guide also says plug-in suppressors are effective.
> ...
>
> Needs no protector? The IEEE guide notes that the voltage between cable
> center conductor and sheath is limited by the breakdown of F-connectors
> which is typically 2-4,000V. The guide notes that connected equipment
> can be damaged at those voltages. Plug-in suppressors will likely clamp
> the voltage to a reasonable level.
> ...
>
> The concern is not distance to common electrode but distance from phone,
> cable entry protector to the earthing wire at the power service.
> Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST
> guide, 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."
>
> The IEEE guide says:
> "If the cable, satellite, or phone cables do not enter the building near
> the service entrance, the only effective way of protecting the equipment
> is to use a multiport protector."
> ...
>
> w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
> must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
> well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
> suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
> to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
> primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains
> earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
> ...
>
> Service panel suppressors are a good idea. What does the NIST guide say?
> "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
> sufficient for the whole house?
> A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
> No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
> cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
> appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
> does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
> is useless."
> ...
>
> Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N.
> That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.
> ...
>
> The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
> Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
> suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
> are effective. Read the sources.
>
> There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
> and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
> effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
> in earthing.
>
> w_ has never answered:
> - 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"?
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap