Clothes Dryer Moisture Sensor

w_tom wrote:

. Oh - like for instance Martzloff: "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." And Martzloff: "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."
I post what sources actually say about plug-in suppressors. But that challenges poor w_'s belief in earthing so he cant understand what any of the sources actually say.
w_ has posted *nothing* from a source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. w_ just keeps posting the same lies - a la Goebbels.
w_ has 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"? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." - 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.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
|> |> | UL listed suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all |> | combinations and all possible surge modes. w_ has never explained how a |> | common mode surge coming in on a power service gets past the N-G bond |> | required at all US services. Past the service the surge is transverse mode. |> |> The surge does not pick a specific direction to take when it comes to a |> fork in the path. The N-G bond is such a fork. The two paths of the fork |> are 1: go over to G ... 2: continue with N. What it really does is take |> both paths. So now you have less surge going past the N, but some does. |> The part of the surge on H is still at full strength because there is no |> H-G bond. Now is it partially common mode (at the level of N) and partially |> differential mode (at the level of H minus N). | . | The panel 'ground' and neutral are bonded. They are at the same | potential. The hot is raised with respect to H & N. To everyone I know | that is a transverse mode surge.
And you think _ALL_ of the energy component on the neutral will go to ground over the bond?
| Seems to me in the past you said it was a common mode surge because N is | raised with respect to ?absolute? ground potential. Then everything is | common mode. In my office all I can see is the hot rising and the | neutral staying at ground wire potential. They taught me in school that | was transverse mode. But maybe ?they? had a hidden agenda.
You didn't even read what I said correctly. Or maybe you are intentionally trying to just twist it.
One of the following you do not understand (maybe even both):
1. A surge can have a high voltage rise time that makes part of its energy behave more like RF, even extending into the microwave range. Not all do, but a close direct strike often does.
2. A surge with RF character does not "stay at ground potential" just because there is a ground present. The energy is in propogation. It cannot just "disappear" because a wire is grounded.
| There seems to be no science in common for a conversation.
Apparently not. See #1 and #2 above.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bud must admit that different types of transients exist. Why do his plug-in protectors not list each surge in numeric specs? To be honest, a plug-in protector must list each type of transient AND admit that a plug-in protector does not protect from the typically destructive type of surge. Page 42 Figure 8.
Panel ground and neutral are bonded. Bud forgets to provide numbers. That common connection is too far away. Same point (provided with numbers) was made in both front page articles in Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". Unlike Bud, the articles also provides numbers. The typically destructive surge seeks earth ground. That means a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. How long is that connection from protector to breaker box? 50 feet? 50 feet means Bud's protectors do not have effective earthing AND that bonding is irrelevant. No wonder Bud never discusses numbers; never even provides a manufacturer spec. How much impedance in that 50 foot wire? Add more impedance for splices and sharp bends. Problems made worse because earthing wires are bundled with other wires. More reasons why that 'bonding' is irrelevant when discussing surge transients.
And the protector must dissipate a typically destructive type of surge in earth. Bud's plug-in protectors will not claim to provide protection. That high impedance connection to breaker box is just one reason why Bud pretends "clamping to nothing" is protection. Type of surge that typically overwhelms protection inside appliances - Bud's protectors cannot provide that protection. No 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection. Bud says "clamping to nothing" will dissipate that surge energy. That bonding inside a breaker box is irrelevant once we apply the numbers as even listed in both EE Times articles.
Surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly in earth ground. Wires that bond neutral and safety ground together are too long. The numbers: assume that plug-in protector is confronted by a tiny 100 amp surge. 100 amp earthed via AC electric wire means protectors to AC breaker box voltage would be something less than 12,000 volts. Why is the adjacent TV damages by a surge through the plug-in protector? Wire to breaker box is too long - 12,000 volts too long. Surge takes a shorter path to earth - 8000 volts destructively through a TV - Page 42 Figure 8. That excessive wire impedance is a major point in EE Times "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients"; two front page articles on 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007 at: http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807127 http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807830
Since plug-in protectors have all but no earth ground, then plug-in protectors do not protect from the typically destructive type of surge. They hope you will assume "clamping to nothing" is protection. Why do plug-in protectors never list protection from each type of surge? No earth ground means no effective protection. Best is to be quite; provide no spec numbers; let Bud promote myths. Bud intentionally ignores the numbers. Excessive wire impedance is why properly earthed protectors have a 'less than 10 foot connection. Typ[iocally destructive surges are RF. Make that earthing connection even shorter for better protection. Protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Bud pretends that wire impedance does not exist. He avoid numbers that expose the myths in his assumptions. Bud even claims "clamping to nothing" will make surge energy disappear. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. Why does w_s favored service panel supplier SquareD not list each surge in numeric specs? Because it is bullcrap. Both service panel and plug-in suppressors have MOVs clamping the voltage between all wires. That suppresses all surge modes. Lacking valid technical arguments w_ invents issues. .

. They aren't my protectors.
If w_ was not impaired by religious blinders he could understand the IEEE guide. Clearly explained - plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. They do not work primarily by earthing. Read the source starting pdf pg 40. .

. 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.
w_ could also read that when the signal protector is too far from the power service, common in many houses, "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." .

. And the required statements of religious belief in earthing.
Everyone agrees earthing is a good idea. The 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. There is only his opinion based on his religious belief in earthing.
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.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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: . http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?pageU6&parentU4 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 http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. 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 dont 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.
--
bud--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?pageU6&parentU4 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 http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
.

. The village idiot doesnt know the difference between a creation date and a revision date. The 1998 revision even has its own name - "UL1449 2nd edition". .

. Nothing in any of w_'s sources says any of the suppressors was even UL listed. .

. This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police to see if a MOV theft ring is active in your area. .

. The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
And the repeated lies - a la Goebbels.
But still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Just the ravings of a lone lunatic.
And 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.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Protectors after 28 Aug 1985 contained an emergency safety circuit to reduce this 'scary picture' problem. Every protector in those scary pictures has such protection. To deny this, Bud must lie; claim that UL1449 was created in 1998; not in 1985.
If protectors are properly sized, then MOVs (the internal protector component) don't vaporize - don't become explosive. Any properly sized protector earths a surge AND its MOVs remain functional. Bud says otherwise. When a protector is grossly undersized, then a thermal fuse (emergency safety circuit made necessary after 1985) tries to keep the MOV from vaporizing / exploding.. Well, sometimes that fuse does not work. Sometimes that protector not only fails, but also create the scary pictures. A severe problem in the 1997 Boston protector and in protectors discussed by the Gaston County Fire Mashal. Those 'scary pictures' are protectors that had to fail *twice* over. First the protector was so grossly undersized as to fail. Second, its thermal fuse failed to prevent the resulting explosive damage. Bud calls this effective protection.
Effective protectors are sufficiently sized; MOVs must not fail. Effective protectors put more money into protection, not in massive profit margins, and need not rely on an emergency safety circuit to stop 'scary pictures'. A protector's 'failure light' indicates a protector was so grossly undersized that the emegency safety circuit activated. Only thing avoiding those 'scary pictures' was an emergency safety circuit. Bud calls that effective.
Bud cannot dispute this. So Bud now resorts to insults. Insults are science proof? Yes Bud is that frustrated because he cannot even provide a single manufacturer spec that claims protection. Bud's citations even demonstrate the problem with grosslly overpriced protectors that have no effective earthing - Page 42 Figure 8.. Manufacturers will not claim in writing what plug-in protectors cannot do. Bud is so frustrated as to now post disparaging remarks.
A protector so grossly undersized as to rely on an emergency safety circuit required by UL1449 sometimes creates these scary pictures: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?pageU6&parentU4 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 http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
Meanwhile another author who does not promote for plug-in protector manufacturers defines what has been standard protection for over 100 years: http://www.ipclp.com/html/aud_ho_faq.html

That secondary protection system consists of one properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Responsible manufacturers who provide effective solutions were listed previously. A surge is diverted to earth so that energy does not enter the building. A surge is shunted to earth where surge energy dissipated harmlessly. A surge is clamped to earth using equipment that is not grossly overpriced like plug-in protectors. A surge is connected to earth AND the protector devices remain functional - not damaged. A damaged plug-in protector can even create 'scary pictures'. Bud will even post insults to avoid 'scary picture' reality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. 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?
-------------------------------- Another post of repeated lies - a la Goebbels.
And willful stupidity - a la religious fanaticism.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again Bud insults rather than provide facts. UL1449 was created in 1985. The resulting emergency safety circuit is installed to reduce the frequency of those 'scary pictures'. But as made obvious in 'scary pictures', the problem still exists in grossly undersized and obscenely profitable protectors promoted by Bud.
Bud will say anything to deny that emergency safety circuit exists. Meanwhile the Gaston County fire marshal defines how the emergency safety circuit (thermal fuse) is not sufficient; why those scary pictures happen in UL1449 approved protectors.
Profits are at risk. Bud must say anything to deny those 'scary pictures'. UL1449 does not say a protector works. UL1449 attempts to reduce the problem - those scary pictures.
In 2007 Boston, a surge protector created an apartment fire. According to Bud, that student's apartment did not burn because his protector was made after 1998. But the fire happened anyway. Bud will say anything to avoid reality in those 'scary pictures'.
Only one of us built and gained experience by building protectors even 20 years ago. The other is a promoter who will say anything to protect those profits. UL1449 was created in 1985.
To have those scary pictures, a protector must fail twice over. First it must be so grossly undersized as to fail. Then the emergency safety circuit must fail to stop an explosive MOV failure. Bud must deny these multiple failures. Profits are at risk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
.

. I posted facts:
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."
Poor w_ cant answer: - Was the UL standard revised as w_s own link said? - Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_s own link said? - What was the date of that revision - which w_s own link said was UL1449 2ed?
And poor w_ cant answer - Where specifically in any of his links did anyone say damaged suppressors had a UL label?
It is really hard to understand how someone could be stupid enough to confuse a creation date with a revision date.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again Bud will never provide a single manufacturer spec that claims a plug-in protector provides protection. He cannot post what no plug-in manufacturer will claim in writing. Plug-in protectors don't claim to provide effective protection. But they sure are profitable.
Bud even denies 'scary pictures' because a plug-in protector fails - twice over - to spit sparks and smoke. Bud's proof that 'scary pictures' don't exist? He posts insults.
Of course, Bud will reply again as my troll always does because 'winning' is determined by getting the last word.
One properly earthed 'whole house' protector that costs tens or 100 times less money are provided by responsible manufacturers that Bud does not promote for. The informed consumer earths one 'whole house' protector from responsible manufacturers; does not associate Bud's insults with reality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
.

. And poor w_ still cant answer: - Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said? - Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said? - What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 2ed? - Where specifically in any of w_s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?
Why no answers w_??? They are your links. .

. I post regularly to this newsgroup. w_ must be the troll.
Im waiting for w_ to answer the questions. Why no answers to simple questions w_???
Winning is determined by having the science right. w_ has no sources that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Where are your sources w_???
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only person ignoring what industry professionals say is Bud. Profits are at risk 'Scary pictures' occur to current technology plug- in protectors because those protectors fail twice over. 1) Grossly undersized and 2) vaporize when the emergency safety circuit fails. Even the Gaston County fire marshal notes a safety problem with plug- in protectors.
Bud even lies about UL 1449 - claiming that 1985 standard was only created in 1998. For over 20 years, protectors needed safety circuits to diminish this scary picture problem. Properly sized 'whole house' protectors with the required earthing don't have that frequent 'scary picture' problem. If properly sized, then the emergency safety circuit is not be routinely used. Then the protector does not fail (provide no protection) during the first surge.
Since his citations even show a problem with his obscenely profitable products - Page 42 Figure 8 - then Bud now post insults. He is my troll. He follows me everywhere. Profits are at risk. When he cannot dispute what industry professional demand for protection, then Bud posts insults.
As EE Times demonstrate in both front page articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" - a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Protection is defined by the earthing system - not my magic. Bud does not promote for earth. So Bud says his protectors work by "clamping to nothing" - magically make surge energy disappear. No wonder industry professionals discuss earth ground religiously. Those professionals never learned magic.
Now if Bud could only find is ruby slippers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
.

. From Martzloff: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
From Martzloff: "Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive [electronic equipment] within the house."
From Martzloff: Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
From w_ - never *any* source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Just the same lies - a la Goebbels. .

. w_ has to be more than just stupid to confuse a creation and revision date. Poor w_ still can't answer: - Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said? - Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said? - What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 2ed? - Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label? Why no answers w_??? They are your links.
Poor w_ also cant answer: - 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"? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? Why no answers 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. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Facts that Bud routinely ignores to post half truths. From Martzlofff:

Plug-in (point of use) protector can also contribute to damage of an appliance. The author notes the easiest solution may also create the appliance damage (also on Page 42 Figure 8). Bud forgets to mention that part. No earth ground means no effective protection - especially from the type of surge that typically harms household appliances. Informed homeowners instead install the less expensive and effectve solution - one 'whole house' protector. Don't waste money on protectors that can even create 'scary pictures'.
An effective protector does not "clamp to nothing". An effective protector dissipates that surge energy in earth. Again Bud refuses to provide any plug-in manufacturer spec for protection. Bud's 'magic boxes' do not provide protection from the typically destructive surge; do not even claim to provide that protection. A long list of facts that Bud must deny or ignore to promote obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors.
What earths the typically destructive surge? A protector with a short connection to earth ground. Then protection inside every appliance is not overwhelmed. Every source including Martzloff makes that point. Bud posts half facts to advocate his 'magic box' solution: "clamping to nothing".
Bud always resorts to insults. My troll does this routinely. Bud insults when he cannot contradict reality. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are all spending time talking surge suppression systems and are ignoring one very important fact. The effectiveness of any grounding system is dependent the soil in which the grounding rod is placed. The electrical resistivity of the soil, can vary depending on the soil type and water content. In the past I have visited sites where the only way to get any effective grounding was by watering the grounding rod once per week. Without an effective grounding rod you can forget about the surge suppression system from whatever source the surge may come.
BillB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 9, 4:16 pm, snipped-for-privacy@abc.net wrote:

How do high reliability facilities fix defective surge protection systems? They don't install any plug-in protectors. In every case, they fix (enhance) the earthing system. Sufficient earthing can be as simple as a ground rod or be enhanced as in FL's sandy soil:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
In every case, protection is about earthing. That includes incoming underground wires: http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf Polyphaser app note TD1026 - http://tinyurl.com/38v2dv

Polyphaser app note TD1023 - http://tinyurl.com/2rsdhj

Elimination of surge damage in Nebraska- http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/nebraska.html Bill Ott demonstrates solutions for no surge damage- http://www.eham.net/articles/6848?ehamsida915ecd56a94ff1e861e080ac23c416 http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/0207048.pdf Also in file: QST_LightningProtectionPart2.pdf

SPGP is the single point ground.
Even a simple 10 foot ground rod with short connection can mean a massive protection improvement. Where no such earthing exists, this rod can mean maybe an 80 or 90% improvement in surge protection. Then high reliability facilities enhance that earthing massively for the last 10%.
Why is lighting striking earth? Because that poor soil is sufficiently conductive.
Bottom line remains - no earth ground means no effective protection. Does not matter how poorly conductive the soil is. Earthing still must be implemented. Earthing defines protection.
How do military facilities suffer direct lightning strikes to munitions lockers - and no damage? Better earthing. Even a nearly 100 year old technology called Ufer grounds means direct lightning strikes without explosion to munitions facilities in poorly conductive soils. But again, protection is only as effective as the earthing system - as demonstrated in FL where lightning strikes are frequent in sandy (poorly conductive) soils. Ufer grounds are one solution commonly used when soil conductivity is poor: http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm These locations are not watering poor conductive soil. Instead, better earthing is installed.
Of course Bud says protection is obtained by "clamping to nothing". Why do so many professionals regard earthing as the 'heart and soul' of every protection system? They are not promoting myths. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is a problem for plug-in protectors that have no earthing connection. The protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why humans install a sufficient earthing system even in poor conductive soils. Poor conductive soil is so conductive as to become part of a lightning electrical circuit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
.

. You may have come in late. I have recommended a guide on surges and surge suppression from the IEEE at: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf And a simpler one from the NIST at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
The IEEE guide has as basic protection elements: 1 earthing the ground reference for incoming wires - required for all systems 2 short interconnection between ground references for incoming power and signal wires - required where possible; sometimes signal entry is too far from power 3 surge suppressor at the power service (in the US there are basic entry protectors for signal) - use where appropriate, like high lightning areas 4 plugin suppressors at sensitive equipment - use where appropriate like sensitive electronics with power and signal connections
I agree with the guide on all 4 points.
w_ agrees with the guide on number #1 and #3.
For #2 w_ wants signal entry protectors connected directly to the grounding electrodes instead of short connection to the earthing wire at the power service. That may compromise keeping the ground references at the same potential. Martzloff 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." Both guides emphasize a major source of damage is high voltage between ground references, and that short interconnect is very important. (Else, the IEEE guide says if there is not a short interconnect wire "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector.") If you have a relatively modest 1000A surge to earth and a very good 10 ohms system-to-earth impedance the ground reference will rise 10,000V above absolute earth potential. All ground references must rise together. I wrote about this in several posts earlier in the thread.
w_ disagrees with #4 and says plug-in suppressors do not work. That is based on his belief that suppression must use earthing. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor, and that earthing occurs elsewhere in the system. (guide starting pdf page 40).
It is disagreement with w_s denial that plug-in suppressors work that you see this far down in the thread. .

. And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
w_ has *still* never posted a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
And poor w_ still can't answer: - Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said? - Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said? - What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 2ed? - Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label? - 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"? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." - 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.
--
bud--

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.