On what basis do you make that claim, w_tom?
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, w_tom.
On what basis do you make that claim, w_tom?
On what basis do you make that claim, w_tom?
On what basis do you make those claims, w_tom?
On what basis do you make those claims, w_tom?
On what basis do you make those claims, w_tom?
On what basis do you make those claims, w_tom?
On what basis do you make those claims, w_tom?
You need to get your meds adjusted.
It is really hard to understand how someone could be stupid enough to confuse a creation date with a revision date.
From w_'s hanford link: "Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL 1449, 2nd Edition, Standard For Safety For Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, now requires thermal protection in power strips. This protection is provided by a thermal fuse located next to the MOV."
From w_'s Gaston Co. link: "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]."
If w_ had any knowledge of the field he would know UL 1449, 2nd Ed was effective in 1998.
The hanford event was 1999. What is the probability the suppressor was manufactured under the new standard?
Lacking technical arguments w_ resorts to personal attacks. My only association with surge protectors is I have some.
Still missing - a source that says there is a problem with UL listed suppressors manufactured under UL1449 2ed (1998).
bud posts facts from w_?s own sources.
Service panel suppressors (like plug-in suppressors) are not designed to protect against crossed power lines. After the MOVs burn out (in seconds), and are disconnected by the required thermal disconnect, you have no protection.
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?
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 doesn?t 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:
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.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.