Home Page link

Replacing electrical wall outlets...

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Home Repair - - If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Otherwise look here. 

Page 5 of 6       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Replacing electrical wall outlets... chicagofan 10-09-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by bud-- on October 22, 2007, 11:51 am
w_tom wrote:

> The NIST defines how it might work and then warns why
> plug-in protectors are not effective:

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? Repeating:
“They are ‘the easiest solution’.”
and:
"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."

With no valid technical arguments w_ has to twist what the NIST says.

>
> Bud recommends protectors ....

I recommend only accurate information. Read the guides and install what
you want.

>
> Bud will avoid ALL discussion about earthing. His protectors have
> no effective earthing.

Repeating:
“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).

> A $3 power strip with some $0.10 parts sells
> for $25 or $150.

One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000 A and 1475 Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.

> Undersizing makes it even more profitable.

"Undersizing" is a red herring. Suppressors with very high ratings are
readily available.

> Another problem with
> protectors that are missing that earthing connection - these 'scary
> pictures':
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has are pathetic scare tactics.

>
> Same reason explains a Boston fire on 28 Sept :

What is the source of the article? Who said the surge suppressor was the
cause? Why? Was it UL listed or cheap unlisted crap? Was it made before
1998?

>
> Ask Bud for specifications that list each type of surge AND numbers
> for protection from each surge? Numbers do not exist.

Repeating:
“Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N.
That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.”

Lacking technical arguments w_ has to invent “each type of surge”.
w_’s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does not list
“each type of surge”.

>
> 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?

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service ‘ground’ is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.



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.

As always, w_ has still not found 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
Can’t even answer simple questions 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.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.


–
bud--

Posted by w_tom on October 23, 2007, 12:45 am
Did Bud forget to mention a plug-in protector protects from one
irrelevant type of surge? That is the point. His citation shows a
plug-in protector earthing an 8000 volt surge destructively through an
adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. It had no dedicated earthing path.
It cannot clamp to nothing. Where did that surge energy get
dissipiated? No dedicated earthing; so it earthed (clamped) surge
energy through an appliance. Bud calls that effective protection and
previously said the homeowner should buy $3000 of protectors for
everything.

Meanwhile, eliminate all plug-in protectors, install one 'whole
house' protector from responsible manufacturers, and upgrade earthing
to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements
(did Bud also forget to mention that?) to have complete and effective
protection.

Why do telcos in every town everywhere not use Bud's
recommendation? Required is protection that works, does not waste
money, and clamps (shunts, connects, diverts) surge energy into
earth. Why does the US Air Force instruction manual demand only
'whole house' protectors?
> Install the surge protection ... where the
> conductor enters the interior of the facility.

Meanwhile where is any plug-in protector spec that lists each type
of surge AND numbers for that protection? Why does Bud routinely fear
that question maybe 400 times now? Plug-in protectors do not claim to
protect from a type of surge that typically causes damage. What kind
of protection is that? Ineffective.

Bud will post incessently so that your eyes glaze over. If he lie
enoughm - confuse reality - then you will buy what is simple rather
then what works. Profits are more important than honesty. Posting
enough lies and half truth will get you to forget what is demanded by
every professional organization from IEEE, to NIST, to every telco, to
every commercial broadcaster, to every electric company, to military
facilities ... They all demand protectors with better earthing. They
don't use what Bud recommends.

Bud even avoids all discussion of earthing because his protector
does not have that dedicated earthing connection. Plug-in protector
does not provide the comprehensive protection provided by one properly
earthed 'whole house' protector. Properly earthed 'whole house'
protector is a simpler, less expensive, and real world solution. It
eliminates the need for grossly overpriced and 'scary picture' plug-in
protectors.

A protector without earthing does not provide protection. Why does
he avoid that reality? Where does surge energy get diverted if not
into earth? Page 42 Figure 8. Surge was diverted 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV. Energy not dissipated in earth
must be dissipated where? Bud will not even provide a manufacturer
specs. Why? Even his manufacturer will not make such claims in
writing. Instead they have Bud.

Bud begins his post with spin (lying by telling half truths). That
telco installed 'whole house' protector on your phone line did not
provide protection for two wire appliances because ALL incoming
utilities must have such protection. Bud forgets to mention that
part. Damage still happened because another 'whole house' protector
was not installed on AC mains. Bud 'forgets' why two wire appliance
are damaged. What happens when AC electric, telephone, cable, and
satellite dish are all properly earthed? All one wire, two wire,
three wire and 100 wire appliances are protected. Your telco uses
'whole house' protectors so that a 100,000 wire appliance is protected
- and without any plug-in protectors. Bud is accused of posting
another half truth just to confuse you. Honesty is not Bud which is
why he will post incessently.

Where does the US Army recommend plug-in protectors? Not. US Army
needs reliable protection. Protectors that 'clamp to nothing' (as Bud
claims), instead, clamp 8000 volts destructively through adjacent
electronics such as Page 42 Figure 8.

Why does Bud also ignore those 'scary pictures'? He lied. UL1449
was created in the late 1980s - and Bud knows that. 'Scary pictures'
are protectors built long after 1987 - and still did what in Boston on
28 Sept? Being honest is not Bud. Honesty means profits are at
risk. Bud will say anything to avoid reality of those 'scary
pictures'; to not post manufacturer specs; to forget why earthing is
so important; and why 'clamping to nothing' only mocks the reader's
intelligence. Why do high reliabilty facilties not use what Bud
recommends?

> ...
> What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? Repeating:
> "They are 'the easiest solution'."
> and:
> "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."
>
> With no valid technical arguments w_ has to twist what the NIST says.
> ...
>
>
> I recommend only accurate information. Read the guides and install what
> you want.
> ...
>
> Repeating:
> "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).
> ...
>
> One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
> of 75,000 A and 1475 Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.
>
> > Undersizing makes it even more profitable.
>
> "Undersizing" is a red herring. Suppressors with very high ratings are
> readily available.
> ...
>
> w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
> model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
> UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
>
> But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has are pathetic scare tactics.
> ...
>
> What is the source of the article? Who said the surge suppressor was the
> cause? Why? Was it UL listed or cheap unlisted crap? Was it made before
> 1998?
> ...
>
> Repeating:
> "Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N.
> That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes."
>
> Lacking technical arguments w_ has to invent "each type of surge".
> w_'s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does not list
> "each type of surge".
> ...


Posted by bud-- on October 23, 2007, 10:46 am
w_tom wrote:

>
> Bud begins his post with spin (lying by telling half truths).

The same drivel from a religious fanatic. I provide reputable sources -
guides from the IEEE and NIST. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

w_ can’t even find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you get are his opinions based on a religious belief in
earthing.


w_ can’t answer simple questions:
- 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"?
- 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.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.


–-
bud--

Posted by hobbes on October 16, 2007, 6:45 am
>
> >> chicagofan wrote:
> >>> My house is 20 yrs. old, and I'm tired of leaving parts of these 3
> >>> pronged cable plugs in my outlets, because I can't remove them without
> >>> so much force. Living in the SE I have to unplug my computers, and
> >>> video stuff *frequently*, and just today destroyed another $50 surge
> >>> protector pulling it out of the wall.
>
> >> In the last sixty years, I've unplugged many an AC cord, but I've
> >> yet to 'leave parts of the plug' in the outlet! I hope you mean by
> >> 'pulling it out of the wall', you aren't pulling on the AC cord itself?
> >> Rather than grasping the plug near the outlet and gently but firmly
> >> unplugging it?
>
> And wiggle it if it is hard to get out, pull on one side, then the
> other. Most plugs from computer stuff are really big and easy to get
> a hold of. I have lamp plugs that are 50 years old and only a
> half-inch deep and they might be hard to grip.
>
> >> Just wondering.
>
> >I was wondering about that also, I have never heard of anything breaking off
> >in the outlet!
>
> I'm wondering too. And what is a three-pronged data cable? What kind
> of data cable is plugged into the wall in the average house?
>
>
>
> >30 years ago lighting struck the building across the street from my office
> >and destroyed one of the 9 computer monitors in my office. That is the only
> >damage I have ever seen from lighting, despite never unplugging anything. I
>
> I don't unplug anything either. I may have lost an internal modem via
> a surge on the phone line, or maybe it broke for some other reason.
>
> But I did have a girlfriend who lived on a wooded lot with a lot of
> trees just outside her property, in Baltimore. She said that she lost
> two fancier than average telephones, a fancy microwave, and the
> refrigerator in one lighting storm. I replaced the electronic module
> for the microwave but it was expensive, 30 to 50% of the cost of a new
> microwave. 60 to 100% of the cost of the microwave used, but I've
> never understood that comparison since she had no way to buy it used,
> unless she wanted to spend weeks going to yard sales and looking at
> ads etc.
>
> Despite all that she lost, no one moves the fridge to unplug it in
> every storm, and the odds are so low that I don't blame them.
>
> Oh, I may have also lost the control panel for my home burglar alarm
> because of lightning, but maybe it was some other cause. One morning
> when I was leaving for work, there was a little smoke coming out of
> it.
>
> Lightning doesn't usually hit the house, or its damage is really
> visible. It hits a tree outside and induces currents in a wire going
> into the house.
>
> Lighning rods don't conduct the lightning to ground. They are so thin
> they'd melt. IIRC they conduct to ground the negagive charge that
> would build up at the top of the house, and the lightning isn't
> attracted to the house anymore. Something like that.
>
> >am wondering just why she is unplugging everything. (I expect it did a bit
> >more damage in the building it hit; it is also the only lighting strike I
> >have ever seen hit.)

Hi,

I thought that a lightning rod system *would* conduct a lighting bolt
to ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod. I had a system
installed on my house by these guys and the cables looked sort of
chunky in size. http://www.alrci.com/faq.php.

Warmest regards, Mike.


Posted by TimR on October 18, 2007, 6:18 am
>
> Lighning rods don't conduct the lightning to ground. They are so thin
> they'd melt. IIRC they conduct to ground the negagive charge that
> would build up at the top of the house, and the lightning isn't
> attracted to the house anymore. Something like that.
>
That's a common misconception, based on the average 30,000 amp
estimate of a lightning strike and trying to figure wire size.

But it's not a steady state current. It's a sharply dampled sinusoid,
and #10 wire is more than adequate for any expected strike. Here in
Europe everybody uses 3/8 inch solid rod (or metric equivalent) but it
is no more protective.


Page 5 of 6       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
replacing older electrical outlets January 30, 2006, 11:44 am
Replacing a wall switch that supplies power to a wall outlet August 3, 2008, 7:45 pm
Arc Fault Breakers For Wall Outlets May 5, 2008, 9:13 am
electrical outlets April 16, 2007, 12:48 am
Power Strip or multiple outlets in the Wall March 25, 2006, 2:32 pm
Question about red electrical outlets January 4, 2006, 2:19 pm
No boxes behind electrical outlets August 2, 2006, 8:22 am
Electrical outlets near doorways. November 27, 2006, 6:43 pm
Ungrounded Electrical outlets December 21, 2006, 5:52 pm
Numbering electrical outlets June 29, 2008, 6:02 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap