Big surge protector needed



UL1449 was created in 1985 due to 'scary picture' problems. Hanford link shows that the problem remained after UL1449 was created. Other 'scary pictures' show same problem with post-1998 protectors. Bud pretends those other pictures do not exist. Bud pretends UL1449 requirements did not exist until 1998. 'Scary pictures' include a Boston fire last year created by a post 1998 plug-in surge protector. See 'scary picture' that Bud must ignore including a NC fire marshal who defines the plug-in protector problem.
A most dangerous type protector, if primary shorts to secondary, is the plug-in protector. A device has only a thermal fuse (and no backup protection) to avoid desktop papers or carpet fires. A thermal fuse not even rated to stop primary voltages will somehow open and stop fires?
When this same fault occurred in multiple locations, homeowners with only a 'whole house' protector suffered no damage. Bud disputes this since plug-in protector profits are Bud's only significant parameter. Bud cannot even provide a plug-in manufacturer spec that says what he posts. Plug-in manufacturers will not even put insults in writing.
As predicted, Bud resorted to insults. Bud will never provide that plug-in manufacturer spec number. That spec does not exist. Protection is provided by earth ground as even demonstrated by every Bud citation. A protector without a short connection to earthing cannot dissipate surge energy into earth; cannot protect from typically destructive surges. So Bud also denies this reality by posting insults. Profits are at risk.
Since responsible sources all define earthing as necessary for protection, then Bud always resorts to posting insults. NB, he did as predicted and as he did yesterday in alt.video.digital-tv. Bud posts insults due to no EE facts? Insults as factual proof means Rush Limbaugh would be proud of Bud.
'Whole house' protector, properly earthed, has made 'primary to secondary' faults non-destructive. In same events, plug-in protectors did nothing to protect appliances - or household wiring. Same point is discussed in recent QST articles on this subject. The effective protector is defined by its earthing connection. An effective protector dissipates surge energy in earth before a 'primary to secondary' fault voltage could harm household wiring or create a house fire.
More important than a big surge protector is something that actually dissipates surge energy (better earthing) and a protector located where that surge enters the building. To dispute these realities (due to no EE facts or citations), Bud posts insults. Demonstrated repeatedly as protection from a 'primary to secondary' fault is one well earthed 'whole house' protector. Where is so much surge energy dissipated harmlessly? Where is the worst place to locate a protector that would spit sparks?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

To the contrary - still missing - any source that says there is a problem with UL listed suppressors made after 1998. Why no source w_?

w_ must ignore what the NC fire marshal actually said (repeating): "More modern surge suppressors are manufactured with a Thermal Cut Out mounted near, or in contact with, the MOV that is intended shut the unit down overheating occurs [sic]."

Neither the thermal fuse in a service panel suppressor or the service panel circuit breakers are rated to "stop primary voltages". Yet w__ continues to claim a service panel suppressor protects against crossed primary wire.

My only "insult" was to state the obvious: "It is really hard to understand how someone could be stupid enough to confuse a creation date with a revision date." Apparently w_ still doesnt know the difference.

Provided many times and ignored by w_.
Where is the manufacturer spec that any service panel suppressor will protect against crossed power lines?

If you want accurate information on surges (not crossed power wires) read an excellent IEEE guide at: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf Or a simpler NIST guide at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
The elephant hiding in the closet is w_'s 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).
Because w_ is evangelical in his belief in earthing, he uses google-groups to search for "surge" to spread his beliefs. That is why he is here and said in his first post that favored service panel suppressors work and plug-in suppressors do not - for crossed power lines.

Demonstrated repeatedly - w_ is not in touch with reality. Provide a source that says service panel suppressors will protect from crossed power lines.
--
bud--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| At about 6kV there should be are-over from bus to panel enclosure (US). | That may provide slight protection, but may also start a fire in the house.
Mount the panel on a large (expensive) copper sheet that is multiply grounded. You could run the grounding wires from the panel along this sheet and bolt or weld them to the sheet every few inches along the way. Just keep as much that is burnable away from the panel as possible.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
|
| |> Try this on your surge protector: |> http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/2008-04-24/bigsurge.mp4 |> |> -- |> |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating |> from | |> | Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more |> readers | |> | you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |> | |> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at |> ipal.net) | | | | | You know, you can create a news account using a ficticious e-mail address, | then include your real e-mail address on a case-by-cace basis by entering it | as <yourname> at <yourISP> dot com. This will allow anybody that wants to | reply to you to do so, while keeping the spambots at bay. Then you can see | news messages from the unwashed fools on Google Groups. Even an unwashed | fool has a valuable thing to say from time to time.
The spam issue isn't email spam in this case ... it's usenet spam. Google readers can see my posts just fine. Spammers scraping Google Groups can get my email address.
The issue is spam in the usenet postings. Google's CAPTCHA got cracked and Google seems to not be taking steps to counter that. The spam volume rose dramatically every week until I decided to block it. I see it as Google putting the posts by legitimate users of their service at risk, not me.
| Spambots know how to ignore "nospam" buried inside an email address, | especially when you set it off with punctuation. You could filter spam | better with philnewsnospam at ipal dot net.
Actually, the modified email address is a real mailbox. It gets about as much spam as my main mailbox, which is seen in a lot more places. I used to generate dyanmically random email addresses (within my domain) in the signature here. Back when I first started doing that, one of those got spammed within 7 minutes of the posting it appeared on.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.