Clothes Dryer Moisture Sensor

More proof that you are a pathetic troll. Are you related to the nutball 'Phil' from dowen under?

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell
Loading thread data ...

Bizarre is Bud who would even lie to protect those sales numbers. Page 42 Figure 8. The plug-in protectors without earth ground earths a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV. Bud's own citation describes what a plug-in protector might do AND then the damage it can create due to no earth ground.

These are standard replies from Bud so that he can get the last reply. Otherwise sales are at risk.

Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or for $150 in Radio Shack, Best Buy, or Circuit City. With profit margins that high, Bud fears you might learn that earthing provides protection. So Bud must post incessantly. Otherwise you might buy and earth one 'whole house' protector. Effective protection means you need not replace Bud's grossly undersized protectors every 18 months or seven years. Replace them? Undersized? A problem that also results in these scary pictures: .

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
or
formatting link
formatting link
So where is that grossly undersized protector located? On a rug behind some furniture? On a desktop full of papers? Plug-in protectors would be located in the worst possible places. But they are so profitable.

Reply to
w_tom

Why do plug-in protectors never claim protection in numerical specs? Because a problem exists. It protects from transverse mode surges (the typically non-destructive type). But it has no earth ground. Therefore it cannot protect (divert, shunt, clamp, coneect) from common mode surges (the typically destructive surge). Need proof? Page 42 Figure 8.

Same important point is demonstrated by both front page articles in Electrical Engineering Times. To protect from the typically destructive surge requires single point earth ground, protectors with a short, dedicated connection to that single point ground, and a superior earthing 'system'.

Where is a common mode surge energy dissipated without damage? Not inside a protector. But a plug-in protector has no place else to dissipate surge energy. That energy must be connected short to earth ground so that energy is dissipated harmlessly in earth. How curious. That is exactly what a Bud citation says when it contradicts Bud:

Bud claims a plug-in protector is complete protection. If true, then the manufacturer would make that claim in numerical specs. Not one plug-in manufacturer dares to publish such numbers. Bud muist ignore hundreds of posts challenging him to provide those spec numbers. Bud cannot provide specs that don't exist.

Bud claims a plug-in protector will 'clamp to nothing' a common mode surge. Protector has all but no earthing connection - as both 'EE Times' front page articles demonstrate. Plug-in protector manufacturers cannot claim common mode protection. So manufacturer makes no claims for protection. Bud is spinning a lie that even the manufacturer will not make.

Essential to surge protection is ... well, time to quote but another industry profressional who demonstrates 'real world' protection:

formatting link
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience

Another industry professional with decades of experience discusses the critical "low impedance" connection to earth. Bud's plug-in protectors have no such connection. Why do every responsible source require a 'low impedance' earthing connection - in direct contradiction to what Bud posts?

Bud 'clamps to nothing'. This industry professional says "you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go". Do we "clamp to nothing" or "clamp to earth"? Which one do we believe? The engineer with decades of proven experience? Or Bud whose citations even contradict Bud? Let's see. Even Francios Martzloff notes how plug-in protectors may contribute to damage of adjacent appliances - just like on Page 42 Figure 8.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Bud now claims something new: that plug-in protectors without an earth connection will somehow, magically, provide common mode protection. Add that to his claim that protectors work by 'clamping to nothing'.

Reply to
w_tom

Actually, there is. Phil isn't the only one reading this (if he actually does). Others learn from what is said here, therefor the "point" is to educate others who aren't knowledgeable in the field (or who don't know Phil).

Reply to
krw

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:13:07 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , | snipped-for-privacy@isp.com says... |> snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> > On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:10:40 -0600 bud-- wrote: | | | |> > What something is designed for, and what it can do in certain cases, are |> > not always the same thing. Then when manufacturers find out that their |> > product already cheaply does what customers want that could have been done |> > in a more expensive way to drive more revenue, they realise the golden |> > goose has escaped the pen and are trying to round it back in. |> . |> Yea, those manufacturers are really stupid. Just like Martzloff. And the |> IEEE. And the NIST. |> . |> > | Or perhaps you could use a device the Emerald book indicates might be |> > | effective. For houses that would be a UPS. But make sure the |> > | manufacturer says the UPS will protect against swells and overvoltage. |> > |> > This is exactly what I am describing. They want to sell something that |> > is way more expensive, rather than admit that something cheap can do the |> > same thing (though self-destructively). |> . |> You dismiss UPSs, which the IEEE Emerald book says may be effective, for |> plug-in suppressors which the Emerlad book does not recommend. |> |> You attack an electrical engineer that is a recognized expert. |> |> You ignore what I post. |> |> There isn=3Ft much point in responding further. | | Actually, there is. Phil isn't the only one reading this (if he | actually does). Others learn from what is said here, therefor the | "point" is to educate others who aren't knowledgeable in the field | (or who don't know Phil).

It is very unlikely anyone else reads into these deep threads. Where people will become misinformed from your posts is at the top of the threads.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:49:37 -0500 Michael A. Terrell wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:27:10 -0500 Michael A. Terrell wrote: |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |>

|> |> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:12:13 -0500 Michael A. Terrell wrote: |> |>

|> |> |> They don't CLAIM to provide such protection. So no, I cannot list a mode |> |> |> that CLAIMS this. They just HAPPEN to do so because of the fact that the |> |> |> MOV breakdown voltage is relatively low. So ultimately, it is your trick |> |> |> question that is the troll. |> |> | |> |> | |> |> | Typical troll bullshit. |> |>

|> |> This from someone that never directly addresses the technical issues when |> |> it is so much easier to just make a personal attack. |> | |> | |> | What do you call your post other than an attack? |> |> A defense. | | | More proof that you are a pathetic troll. Are you related to the | nutball 'Phil' from dowen under?

My ham call doesn't begin with VK. Or have you not noticed it.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

| The comments questioned above were only whether a common mode surge | coming in on power wires can get past the N-G bond in US services. And | it is a side issue because plug?in suppressors will protect from both | common and transverse mode surges.

I see a possible point of confusion here. The term "plug-in suppressor" has TWO different applicable devices that different people might associate with this term:

  1. A power strip type surge protector that plugs into the outlet (and appliances are plugged into it). Some have connections for other things like 75 ohm coax on F connectors, RJ-11 connectors for phone lines, and maybe even RJ-45 for LANs (haven't see that, yet, but I can't rule it out).

  1. A surge protection module that plugs into breaker panel or into a special type of receptacle (common in hospitals, but maybe they are showing up in more areas, now). The more common one is a module that plugs into the space of 2, 4 or 8 breakers in a common plug-in breaker style panel.

Type #1 has no means to protect against a common mode surge that arrives on all THREE wires, unless it has a diversion path (usually to earth). But doing this at distance from the breaker panel creates new risks, such as elevated ground potential running backwards through the circuit.

If you think this protector can protect against a THREE wire common mode surge, do tell where you THINK the surge energy will be diverted to.

Type #2 isn't any better at protecting against common mode. But closer to the N-G bond and particularly to the grounding electrode connections, it is more likely to see a reduced surge voltage on the ground wire and thus be able to divert some energy from the hot/line wires over to the ground wire (or the neutral if it doesn't have a ground connection that is separate from the neutral ... which should only be done in the main panel that has the N-G bond).

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Whoosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You don't have to live in the same country, or even on the same continent to be spawned from the same defective DNA.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association with surge protectors is I have some. .

. Sigh.....the lie repeated yet again. .

. These are standard replies from w_ so he can get the last reply. His religious belief in earthing has been challenged and his universe has developed cracks.

I am waiting for w_ to provide a link that agrees with his bizarre idea that plug-in suppressors don?t work.

And waiting for answers to 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? .

. One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10. The other 2 MOVs were rated 590J 30,000A. The suppressor cost under $30 and has a protected equipment warranty. .

. In w_?s mind, plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings, service panel suppressors have mega ratings. But plug-in suppressors are readily available with very high ratings for relatively low cost (as above). .

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 required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since

1998.

With no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

But w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels - if you repeat the lie often enough, people will believe it.

Reply to
bud--
.

. Still never answered - how common mode power surges get past the N-G bond in US power services. .

. Apparently w_ can?t google because the institution only lets w_ look at newsgroups - the internet has dirty pictures. .

. The example in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40 is a common mode surge on a cable drop. The illustration shows how a plug-in suppressor provides protection. Because of his religious blinders, poor w_ can?t understand the simple explanation and has to ?reinterpret? what the IEEE guide says. .

. From the IEEE guide. Surge comes in on cable drop. 2TVs. Plug-in suppressor at TV1 protects it. Voltage at TV2 (cable to power) goes from

10kV to 8kV.

Repeating: 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."

Repeating: 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 (not a "single point ground"). The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

Because it violates his religious belief in earthing, w_ frequently lies about what this illustration shows. .

. Explained often and ignored because of religious blinders.

Repeating: The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.

Repeating: If w_ could read he would find in the IEEE guide example (pdf pg 40) that "the vast majority of the incoming lightning surge current flows through" the ?ground? wire from the cable ground block to the power service. And the guide says that is "as the NEC/CEC writers intended." The surge is earthed. But not primarily through the plug-in suppressor.

.

Hundreds of posts? w_ exaggerates 1E6 times.

Specs provided and ignored. There are some in my other post. .

. Look at a surge coming in on power wires to the service panel. If you earth a relatively modest 1000A surge through a very good 10 ohm impedance to earth, the ?ground? at the service panel rises 10,000V above ?absolute? ground potential. Equipment connected only to power can float above ?absolute? ground. The only way to protect equipment with phone/cable connection is to make sure the phone and cable ?ground? potential is the same as the power ?ground?. That requires a short connection from entrance protectors to the power system ?ground?. That is called a ?single point ground?.

Plug-in suppressors do the same thing except earthing does not occur primarily through the suppressor. The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. A plug-in suppressor is a local single point ground. Since earthing is not involved at the suppressor poor w_ can?t understand. .

. Martzloff says "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." [But remember that Martzloff has a hidden agenda.] .

. And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. Never fly in a airplane - they aren?t earthed at all and have no lightning protection.

Everyone agrees earthing is a good idea. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides says plug-in suppressors are effective.

w_ still has not found another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn?t anyone agree with you w_?

w_ has still never answered 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. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

Reply to
bud--

| w_tom wrote: |> On Mar 3, 2:00 pm, bud-- wrote: | . |>> The comments questioned above were only whether a common mode surge |>> coming in on power wires can get past the N-G bond in US services. And |>> it is a side issue because plug-in suppressors will protect from both |>> common and transverse mode surges. | . | Still never answered - how common mode power surges get past the N-G | bond in US power services.

Maybe you should ask in sci.physics. I do remember explaining this once before, but I don't know if it was in this subthread or another. I will try again, and this time the post will be nothing more than this to be sure it doesn't get lost in the mix of includes and rebuttals that most posts in this and many other threads tend to have.

The leading edge of a surge propogates at a significant fraction of the speed of light along a wire. When that wire splits apart, the edge propogates over both of those wires. Unless those two wires together have the same characteristic impedance as the wire the edge arrives on, there will also be a backward reflection of that edge along the same wire it arrived on. The proportions of energy going over each wire from that point vary according to the characteristic impedance.

The N-G bond is one of those "wires". The continuation of the neutral is another. The surge edge impulse will this go its way over both of those paths, dividing the energy between them (and likely also some to the reflection back up the service drop N/G combination wire).

The fact that the N-G bond is a usable short path to ground does not affect the division of impulse energy.

If the grounding electrode connection(s) are attached directly at this point of bonding, the electrical energy will propogate in all of these directions. This includes the grounding wire of the various circuits fed from the panel the N-G bond is in. In other words, the surge that came in on the service neutral will propogate over the neutral of the branch circuits, the ground of the branch circuits, and the conductors that attach to the grounding electrodes.

The energy in the neutral and ground wires of the branch circuits will now be lower. But it will not be zero. The energy in the hot wire may be reduced as well, depending on how it branches out and around. But there will be some energy level remaining on hot, neutral, and ground.

This then makes up a mixed mode surge. Some of the energy is common mode. What is different between any pair of wires being considered is the differential or traversal mode.

The (or rather, a significant part of) energy of the surge gets past the N-G bond to the neutral bus and to the branch circuit neutral wires simply because they are connected.

The surge energy is NOT caused by any means to entirely divert over the N-G bond to the ground bus, and to only the grounding electrode wires, just because they happen to be earthed.

The path selection the energy impulse takes at a point of multiple paths is in inverse proportion to the square of the instantaneous characteristic impedance. If you want to have zero surge going over the neutral wire, then you need to make it have a (nearly) infinitely high impedance. In other words, disconnect the neutral before the surge arrives.

All of the above pertains to the surge IMPULSE. The behaviour of an impulse is quite different than the behaviour of DC or low frequency AC. In the latter case, the CHANGE of voltage will still propogate just like an impulse, but the impulse will return, effectively cancelling out most of the current that is associated with it. The slight difference is the charging current of the circuit (quite small in home wiring). The change in voltage when you flip on a switch is quite small relative to short time frames like a microsecond. But a lightning surge can have very large voltage changes in that same time frame, especially if it is a direct strike (as opposed to just an induced surge from a nearby strike).

The N-G bond serves many purposes well. But for high transient voltage surges, it only marginally reduces the surge (the amount diverted away to ground).

A well designed surge suppressor will design the various connections in a way that will have a LOW characteristic impedance at the frequencies the high transient impulse represents for the path to the grounding electrodes, and a HIGH characteristic impedance at these same frequencies for the path to the protected electrical circuits. It will do this on all conductors, not just the neutral. It has to do the opposite for the low AC frequency of the power service, aside from the neutral to earth connection which can be low impedance at all frequencies. An arc gap might be used between the hot conductors and that ground path, to be a low impedance above breakdown voltages.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

. Martzloff et al. looked at whether you have to model a branch circuit as a transmission line. You don't. But Martzloff had a hidden agenda.

Too bad none of the 6 EE authors of the guides are as smart as you. Maybe you should publish a paper.

Reply to
bud--

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:35:57 -0600 bud-- wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:35:37 -0600 bud-- wrote: |> |> | w_tom wrote: |> |> On Mar 3, 2:00 pm, bud-- wrote: |> | . |> |>> The comments questioned above were only whether a common mode surge |> |>> coming in on power wires can get past the N-G bond in US services. And |> |>> it is a side issue because plug-in suppressors will protect from both |> |>> common and transverse mode surges. |> | . |> | Still never answered - how common mode power surges get past the N-G |> | bond in US power services. |> |> The leading edge of a surge propogates at a significant fraction of the |> speed of light along a wire. When that wire splits apart, the edge |> propogates over both of those wires. Unless those two wires together |> have the same characteristic impedance as the wire the edge arrives on, |> there will also be a backward reflection of that edge along the same |> wire it arrived on. The proportions of energy going over each wire from |> that point vary according to the characteristic impedance. | . | Martzloff et al. looked at whether you have to model a branch circuit as | a transmission line. You don't. But Martzloff had a hidden agenda. | | Too bad none of the 6 EE authors of the guides are as smart as you. | Maybe you should publish a paper.

But at least now you know how the surge can get past the N-G bond. So you don't have to ask anyone else that question, anymore.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

OK Phil, at least; unlike some other posters; your arguments are clearly written and well argued. So let me pose a question. If a common mode serge reaches a plug in Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor and that device does what it is designed to do; which if I understood my previous training correctly is to keep the voltage as near to the same on all three wires as possible; isn't that effective protection. No voltage difference would mean no current flow. No Current flow equals no power delivered to the protected load. No power equals no damage. Objective achieved, declare victory, and go home.

I have done remote installs from Alaska to Argentina to Arizona and in the real world work we did single point grounds and listed TVSS installs kept the equipment functioning month after month and year after year. When these sites failed we got phone calls and lots of them. The Alaska site had a vent control failure that caused the batteries to fail explosively and a colleague was en route to the site before the acid stopped fuming. The Arizona site had a physical failure of the structure years after I left the company that manufactured it. I still got a phone call. So far not one call for a lightning or surge caused failure. To what do we owe our clean record of power system survivability in lightning prone environments. Meir careful adherence to the IEEE and NIST guidance on protection that some on this newsgroup keep trying to dismiss as ineffective would be my answer. But I'm sure some would say that since it violates their belief that low impedance earthing is the only answer it's just dumb luck.

Reply to
Tom Horne

IEEE authors routinely noted the problem with what Bud posts. Bud will cite selectively what Martzloff wrote. Bud will claim plug-in protectors need no earth ground.

Bud will not post what Martzloff also says - bluntly. A plug-in protector without proper earthing can earth a surge destructively through household appliances. How curious. This engineer has seen same even many decades ago. And Bud's citation - Page 42 Figure 8 - says the same thing - contradicts Bud. What does Martzloff say and what does Bud ignore to promote plug-in (point of use) protectors?

Plug-in protector without that so critical 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth can, instead, earth a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through TV2. This also from a Bud citation on Page 42 Figure 8.

Effective protection earths surges where all wires enter the building. This same solution is why telco COs suffer maybe 100 surges in every thunderstorm - and no damage. Those same telcos avoid everything Bud has recommended. Effective protectors make that 'less than 10 foot' connection. We call the effective protector (from responsible manufacturers) a 'whole house' protector. Only one is required on each incoming wire. Some of those responsible manufacturers are Intermatic, Square D, Leviton, Cutlet-Hammer, Keison, Polyphaser, Siemens, and GE. Who is not on that list? Belkin, APC, and Tripplite. Why? Where is that dedicated wire to earth ground? No earth ground means no effective protection.. Somehow Bud's protectors use magic to absorb what three miles of sky could not stop?

One need not remember these names. A responsible homeowner simply examines the protector. Will it make a 'less than 10 foot' connection to single point earth ground? If not, it is probably a grossly overpriced, ineffective protector promoted by Bud.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. All this being irrelevant to the OP's question.

One 'whole house' protector properly earthed means surges cannot explain electronics failure inside that dryer. Internal electronics failures best understood by an autopsy of that 'dead body'.

Reply to
w_tom

UL1449 was created 28 Aug 1985. It was not created in 1998 as Bud claims. Those protectors in scary pictures have UL1449 safety approval - and may still create a fire risk. Bud will say anything to avoid another problem with his grossly undersized protectors. Why? Because plug-in protectors are so obscenely profitable.

An effective protector earths a direct lightning strike - and remains functional. NIST, IEEE, and a long list of other responsible sources say a low impedance connection to earth ground is essential to protection. No low impedance earthing means a protector may earth a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through TV2

Many here have seen plug-in protectors fail during a surge. Usually, the failure only results in a blown fuse (reported by an indicator lamp) or something far worse - smoke. But that completely unacceptable failure is due to the protector being grossly undersized. Some grossly undersized protectors (current technology as demonstrated by the 2007 Boston apartment fire) may create a fire risk rather than blow fuse. The point demonstrated by scary pictures:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
or
formatting link
formatting link
How do we eliminate this scary picture problem? Surges earthed before entering a building means no or minimal energy to create those scary pictures.

An effective protector is properly sized so that an internal fuse does not blow, so that the protector remains functional after earthing a direct lightning strike, and does not enrich the manufacture by 'forgetting' to be properly sized.

UL 1449 standard was created in 1985; not 1998. Bud will say anything - including the 1998 lie - to protect obscene profits on plug- in protectors.

A threat to human life is even defined by the Gaston County fire marshal. As demonstrated by a Boston apartment fire only five month ago. In one photograph, all protector components are removed. The protector indicator light still says the protector is good. Is that honesty, or another example of what Bud promotes? How is that protector still good if all protector components are removed?

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground; a standard technology even 100 years ago. Bud says a protector needs no earth ground. Who do we believe? Well if a 6000 volts surge appears on the black wire, then a plug-in protector shunted (diverts, connects) it to the green and white wires. Now all three wires are 6000 volts - and that surge is still seeking earth ground. What therefore results? Just another example of page 42 Figure 8. This resulting appliance damage created by an adjacent protector was even observed decades ago to powered off computers on a network.

The protector without earthing simply put all wires at the surge voltage. The surge then found earth ground via all networked computers. Bud called that effective protection. Bud also claims UL1449 was created in 1998.

Reply to
w_tom

What a maroon! I know, you like it that way.

Reply to
krw

i still say he could trade places with Phill Allison, and no one would notice.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Well, Phil isn't quite as "colorful" as Phyllis.

Reply to
krw

He's only been online sine 1686, give him time. :(

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

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.