Clothes Dryer Moisture Sensor

. Cite selectively? w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff wrote in the same document: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

At the time of the paper, 1994, multiport suppressors were just a concept or very new. In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in suppressors are effective.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what Martzloff (and everyone else) says. .

. And another repetition of the lie. .

. Martzloff wrote a guide for customer service reps for rural electrical coops including: "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." .

. The required statements of religious belief in earthing.

w_'s religious blinders only let him see what agrees with his religious view. Everything else is invisible. w_ is the poster child for cognitive dissonance.

. The village idiot doesn?t know the difference between a creation date and a revision date. The 1998 revision even has it?s own name - "UL1449

. 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.

Many times over. :(

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

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:

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.

Martzloff says what is necessary to make a protector effective. Earth ground. Why does Bud forget to mention that part? Bud also forgets what Martzloff also says. A plug-in protector may even be harmful to adjacent appliances. How curious. We saw the exact same thing when a plug-in protector earthed surges destructively through a network of powered off computers. Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates the same problem.

Bud ignores what is written in Martzloff's very first conclusion. The plug-in (point of use) protector can even contribute to appliance damage:

Why would Bud ignore what Martzloff says? Profits are at risk. Bud must post selectively. Every source says the protector will only be as effective as its earth ground.

Bud says a protector works by 'clamping to nothing'. Professionals say that clamping (shunt) must be short to single point earth ground.

Bud says a protector works by making surge energy magically disappear. Professionals say that energy must be dissipated in earth.

Bud says that a MOV connecting two wires together makes the common mode voltage disappear. Professionals say that will leave both wires at the same thousands of volts - a voltage that can be reduced only by connecting it short to earth ground.

Bud says a protector is connected to earth by neutral and safety ground wire. Professional (such as both front page articles in EE Times) state that wire to earth ground must be short (ie 'less than 10 feet'), have no sharp bends, no splices, separated from other wires, etc. Provided previously were voltages when the wall receptacle is 50 feet from the breaker box. Something less than 12,000 volts when the surge is a trivial 100 amps. 12,000 volts is protection? No wonder professional cite Page 42 Figure 8 - the surge earthed 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV.

Why does Bud forget these other facts from professionals? Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $150. Profits are at risk when the consumer learns "A protector is only as effective as its earth ground". Consumer might learn that one 'whole house' protector from responsible manufacturers provides significantly superior protection for tens or maybe 100 times less money.

A short list of facts that Bud must avoid to promote plug-in protectors. So where is that manufacturer specification that claims protection from each type of surge? Bud says the plug-in protector is complete protection. The manufacturer will not even make that claim. Bud never provides a single manufacturer spec that claims protection. Bud cannot cite what does not exist. So Bud posts insults.

Honesty is not Bud. Profits would be at risk. Where is that manufacturer spec? Crickets.

| Martzloff says what is necessary to make a protector effective. | Earth ground. Why does Bud forget to mention that part? Bud also

For surge energy components that are low in frequency, earth serves as the "sink". It's the other end of the difference between earth and sky.

For surge energy components that are high in frequency (e.g. the leading edge of the transient rising voltage), if they make it to earth, it will have more places to go instead of reflecting back.

| forgets what Martzloff also says. A plug-in protector may even be | harmful to adjacent appliances. How curious. We saw the exact same

To the extent that a surge on hot or neutral jumps over to ground in a surge protector at the appliance location, that means the ground wire has the surge. If the 2nd appliance is on the same branch, it now gets another surge.

But it would get the first surge on the hot wire, too, right? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it was switched off in such a way that such a surge would be well attenuated.

| Why would Bud ignore what Martzloff says? Profits are at risk. Bud | must post selectively. Every source says the protector will only be | as effective as its earth ground. | | Bud says a protector works by 'clamping to nothing'. Professionals | say that clamping (shunt) must be short to single point earth ground.

A protector can provide additional paths to "spread out" the surge even if it isn't connect to earth. That may be a good thing in some cases (none of the paths have anything to damage) or a bad thing in other cases (more things can be damaged if the now weaker split up surge is still strong enough to do damage).

| Bud says a protector works by making surge energy magically | disappear. Professionals say that energy must be dissipated in earth.

Maybe ths surge is floating away with the magic smoke? :-)

| Bud says that a MOV connecting two wires together makes the common | mode voltage disappear. Professionals say that will leave both wires | at the same thousands of volts - a voltage that can be reduced only by | connecting it short to earth ground. | | Bud says a protector is connected to earth by neutral and safety | ground wire. Professional (such as both front page articles in EE | Times) state that wire to earth ground must be short (ie 'less than 10 | feet'), have no sharp bends, no splices, separated from other wires,

E.g. must have very little inductance and other impedances for high frequency transients.

| etc. Provided previously were voltages when the wall receptacle is 50 | feet from the breaker box. Something less than 12,000 volts when the | surge is a trivial 100 amps. 12,000 volts is protection? No wonder | professional cite Page 42 Figure 8 - the surge earthed 8000 volts | destructively through an adjacent TV. | | Why does Bud forget these other facts from professionals? Take a $3 | power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $150. Profits | are at risk when the consumer learns "A protector is only as | effective as its earth ground". Consumer might learn that one 'whole | house' protector from responsible manufacturers provides significantly | superior protection for tens or maybe 100 times less money.

A plug-in (a power strip type being the typical example) does provide supplementary protection from a variety of surge classes. It just does not do as good a job as an entry protector with a ground connection. But even the latter is not 100% protection. Nothing is 100% protection. Doing both is the maximum protection that is practical in most cases.

. 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.

. Intelligence is not w_.

Just the same drivel - *all* debunked.

Still *no* link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. You can?t find anyone who agrees even on the internet???

Still *no* 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? How come you don?t 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. 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.

The stuff the enginers wrot missed that entirely. You proved that guy that wrot the NIST stuff had a hiden agenda, but geez - them 5 enginers that wrote the IEEE stuff are sure stupid. Probly had a hiden agenda too. An they were in the IEEE part that is suposed to be expert with surges. An they even had other pointy heded IEEE guys look at the stuff. The IEEE is just a club of intelectul loosers. I bet you aren?t one. And they aimed ther stuff at enginers. Them enginers will beleve anything. . > Now back to common mode. The surge will continue on to the device that

. I bet ya don?t fly in airplaines. They get hit by lightnining all the time and crash. It is a BIG coverup.

Keep up the good work phil.

Look at the three citations from Bud. Bud says a plug-in protector will make all types of surges somehow disappear. Bud's IEEE citation shows how a plug-in protector might work. Then shows why the plug-in protector - too close to appliances and too far from earth ground - will even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances. Page 42 Figure 8. That energy must be dissipated somewhere. Bud calls that 8000 volt damaged TV "effective protection".

Bud claims a protector needs no earthing to magically stop what even three miles of sky could not stop. But Bud's NIST citation repeatedly says different. On page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) at:

On page 17 (Adobe page 19 of 24):

Best protection can be useless if grounding is not done properly. But Bud says a protector works by 'clamping to nothing'? Why does Bud's citation contradict Bud?

And finally Bud makes some claim that Martzloff recommends plug-in protectors. But Martzloff says the plug-in (point of use) protector can even harm appliances:

Why do each source contradict what Bud says? Maybe Bud could provide a manufacturer spec that claims protection? No, Bud cannot even do that. Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide Bud's 'magic box' protection from type of surge that typically causes damage. Why does Bud forget to admit this?

Spend tens or maybe 100 times more money for Bud's ineffective protectors. Or install (earth) what all locations that cannot suffer any damage must do. Why do telco COs not use what Bud recommends? They suffer maybe 100 surges during every thunderstorm. They cannot waste money on protectors that are ineffective. Instead, telcos earth every incoming wire at the service entrance. How curious. The one solution for massive protection is sold by people Bud does not promote. GE, Siemens, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, Leviton, Intermatic, or Polyphaser all sell protectors that make that earthing connection.

How do we know these manufacturers make effective protectors? The effective protector has a dedicated wire for that 'less than 10 foot' earth ground. What happens when the connection to earth is longer? More of the surge seeks earth ground destructively inside the building. Shorter earthing connections mean even better protection. Bud says no earthing is needed for protection.

All appliances contain significant protection. Protection that can be compromised by an adjacent protector. Protection that can be overwhelmed if the typically destructive surge is not earthed where wires enter the building.

Bud distorts what the IEEE, NIST and Martzloff say. Profits are at risk. Responsible sources even say why an effective protector makes that short, low impedance connection to earth (as demonstrated in both front page articles from EE Times). Bud's citations even contradict Bud.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. As the NIST says bluntly, the function of a protector is to "simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm." A direct quote that Bud must deny. NIST could not be more honest. Did we mention those 'scary pictures' created by undersized plug-in protectors that Bud recommends?

Bud again refuses to post technically. So Bud is now resorting to insults and mockery. Bud's three citations from the IEEE, NIST, and Martzloff are quoted in another post. All three contradict what Bud claims. So Bud must now insult.

What do industry professionals always install with care when surges cannot cause damage? A single point earth ground. When protection must be better, then the earth ground is enhanced. Bud tells us that earthing is not necessary for surge protection. How curious. In Orange Country Florida, emergency response facilities suffered surge damage. So they installed Bud's plug-in protectors? Of course not. To stop surge damage, they simply fixed defective earthing:

Typically destructive surge seeks earth ground. If not earthed before entering a building, then that surge may seek destructive paths through household appliances - Page 42 Figure 8 from a Bud citation. And "Conclusion 1" from Martzloff.

Bud says a 'magic box' will stop what three miles cannot stop. That 'magic box' will make surge energy just disappear. 'Magic boxes' that even create 'scary pictures' because they are grossly undersized? Bud says such failures do not exist.

Bud recommends spending $25 or $150 for each appliance. But effective protectors from responsible manufacturers costs about $1 per protected appliance. No wonder Bud is now resorting to insult and mockery. All he need do is post a manufacturer spec that claims protection. But again, Bud does not post what does not exist. Even those plug-in protector manufacturers will not claim to provide protection. So Bud posts mockery and insults.

Again Bud insults rather than provide facts. UL1449 was created in

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.

. w_'s religious blinders don't let him see what the IEEE, NIST and Martzloff say.

w_ still 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? Where are you answers w_???

And where is a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. You can't find anyone who agrees even on the internet???

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.

. 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_ can?t 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_ can?t 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.

. 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 can?t 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.

Again Bud 'cut and pastes' his diatribe while his citations say otherwise. Where is that manufacturer spec that claims any protection? Bud cannot define protection when plug-in protector manufacturers will not make that claim in writing. How are they effective? Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $150. "Plug-in suppressors are effective" at enriching the manufacturer.

When grossly undersized to fail due during a surge, well, failure is also effective for improving the bottom line. And that failure gets the naive to effectively recommend more plug-in protectors.

Profits are at risk. So again, Bud posts his myths incessantly. Where are those spec numbers that claim protection? Bud cannot post spec numbers that do not exist. So Bud even pretends that Page 42 Figure 8 does not exist: a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent appliance.

Of course Bud will reply again. Bud repeatedly posts same insults and myths to get the last word. Bud never posted a single spec that claims plug-in protection. Bud cannot post numbers that never existed.

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.

. Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups for "surge" to paste in his religious tract to convert the heathens. That is how he arrived here. He continues to cut and paste his religious tract because his religious belief in earthing has been challenged. .

. Of course I did. And I already told you twice that I already told you.

w_ just posts the same lies - a la Goebbels.

w_ still has never posted a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

w_ still 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.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are 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 no answers w_??? They are your links. .

. I post regularly to this newsgroup. w_ must be the troll.

I?m 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_???