Clothes Dryer Moisture Sensor

.

. 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_???

Reply to
bud--
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
w_tom
.

. 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 can?t 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.

Reply to
bud--

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.

Reply to
w_tom

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

Reply to
billb

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:

formatting link
In every case, protection is about earthing. That includes incoming underground wires:
formatting link
formatting link
Polyphaser app note TD1026 -
formatting link
Lightning strikes somewhere across the street close

Polyphaser app note TD1023 -

formatting link
First and foremost, there should be only one ground system.

Elimination of surge damage in Nebraska-

formatting link
Bill Ott demonstrates solutions for no surge damage-
formatting link
formatting link
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:
formatting link
formatting link
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.

Reply to
w_tom

| You are all spending time talking surge suppression systems and are ignoring

Actually, no they are not. They are just having a game of bashing each other over the head and calling it a surge.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam
.

. You may have come in late. I have recommended a guide on surges and surge suppression from the IEEE at:

formatting link
a simpler one from the NIST at:
formatting link
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 plug?in 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.

Reply to
bud--

| 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.

For low frequency surge energy, keeping things at the same potential is more critical, and that strongly suggests a short "intergrounding".

For high frequency surge energy, the short interconnect can let such energy across from one wiring to another. High frequency surge energy can then cause damage to sensitive electronics as a result.

One way to deal with this is to have a type of surge suppression that can trap out the high frequency energy. That way you can have the short "intergrounding" without much of the risk. Whether that high frequency blocking (which also needs a diversion path) should be before the "intergrounding", after the "intergrounding", or later at the point of use, needs to be considered. Some (but far too few) point of user suppressors include such protection.

One thing I would NOT recommend is that "intergrounding" itself be made to block high frequency energy. To do so would require supplementary paths to ground for the high frequency energy, which would create loops in the system.

"All ground references must rise together." ... yes, but ... they must also not rise too fast, or the propogation of the rise will, by itself, cause damage, especially on wiring that is designed for carrying high frequency signals (twisted pair can reach 1 GHz and coax can go well beyond that).

| 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).

They have their uses. But they are supplemental. They are not able to do much with a common mode surge on all conductors. I would not have them separately earthed, however, because of the differential ground potential issue.

| It is disagreement with w_?s denial that plug-in suppressors work that | you see this far down in the thread.

Just do not assume they are going to be as effective as a well designed whole building entrance based surge protection system.

| 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.

But not nearly as much as a central system. OTOH, some surges can be induced after the central system, so I would not do without point of use protection, either. FYI, I have seen damage on UNPLUGGED equipment due to an induced surge.

| Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work. | Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

They are effective for some types of surges and not effective for some other types of surges. Some protectors are better than others. They should not be considered a complete or maximal level of protection. They should be used as part of a complete system of protection that also includes a well designed service entrance protection.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

. Both guides emphasize short interconnection. None of the six EEs what wrote the 2 guides indicates a problem. But they all probably had a hidden agenda like Martzloff.

The EEs at the IEEE that peer reviewed the IEEE guide didn?t see a problem. They probably had a hidden agenda too.

Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited transmission line characteristics. They don?t, as I previously posted (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.

w_?s link at

formatting link
?t see much RF energy in a surge. Thee author probably has a hidden agenda also.

You have posted no link to a source that agrees with you. There is no common science on which to base further conversation.

You seem to have an i problem. .

. None of the 6 EEs that wrote the 2 guides agree with you. (But they all had a hidden agenda.) The specific example of suppression with a plug-in suppressor in the IEEE guide (which you probably haven?t read) was for a common mode surge. You have no links that agree with you.

Reply to
bud--

Again Bud's links demonstrate his problem. Bud selectively quotes to promote propaganda. But everyone who does this professionally says earthing provides the protection. It is obvious. Surge energy must be dissipated somewhere. Professionals - and all of Bud's citations - say surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly in earth. Bud spins a lie that only Rush Limbaugh could love.

How does Bud avoid reality? He quotes selectively. He says a plug- in protector 'clamps'. He conveniently forgets that 'clamping to nothing' means surge energy still must be dissipated somewhere. Surge energy gets dissipated inside the grossly undersized plug-in protector (ie 'scary pictures') or surge energy gets dissipated 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent appliance (ie Page 42 Figure 8). How convenient. Even Martzloff says surge energy must be earthed. So Bud routinely forgets to mention it.

A protector without earthing provides protection by making energy 'magically disappear'. Instead, what does a responsible source discuss in two front page articles in EE Times article entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients"? Earth ground. Bud says protectors don't need earthing. Bud says protectors can "clamp to nothing".

What does the Atlanta Scientific require for protection of their electronics?

What does the industry professional state in "Proper Copper Grounding Systems Stops Lightning Damage at Nebraska FM Station"?

What does Bud's above cited NIST article say on page 17 (Adobe page19 of 24)?

Bud ignores Page 17. Bud routinely quotes selectively - pretends page 17 does not exist. Bud pretends earthing required by Martzloff, instead, is not required by Martzloff. Bud promotes plug-in protectors. He is so dishonest as to even not admit it.

No wonder high reliability facilities (ie a telco CO) do not use Bud's grossly undersized and obscenely profitable protection. Instead, they use the well proven, 100 year old technology: earth ground provides protection no matter how many times Bud denies it. Bud is so dishonest that to not even provide a manufacturer spec for his complete 'magic box' protector. The plug-in protector alone is sufficient for protection? Bud says that. But even the manufacturer will not make that claim. Bud never provides a single manufacturer spec that claims protection. How many times has he been asked? 400? Bud cannot provide what even the manufacturer will not claim. . What does the informed human learn? Protector is only as effective as its earth ground. How to obtain better protection even in least conductive soils? Upgrade the earthing. Why would lightning stike poorly conductive soils. Because low conductive soils are sufficiently conductive to lightning - the most destructive of surges. Why does lightning routinely strike munitions lockers without explosion? Proper earthing even in low conductive soils means no damage to electronics and no munitions explosions. Protectors also are only as effective as that single point earth ground. Provided previously and never by Bud are superior earthing solutions routinely installed so that surges do not cause damage.

Reply to
w_tom

Rush Limbaugh does the same thing to deny reality - to promote an agenda. Let's see. Both 'top of the front page' articles in EE Times (a trade rag for Electrical Engineers - not for Bud) published on 1 Oct 2007 and 8 Oct 2007 ... accoring to Bud they have a hidden agenda. But again, Bud spins a myth to promote plug-in protectors. I am sorry to admit that my troll is not known for honesty.

Reply to
w_tom

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:18:22 -0600 bud-- wrote: |> |> | 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. |> |> For low frequency surge energy, keeping things at the same potential |> is more critical, and that strongly suggests a short "intergrounding". |> |> For high frequency surge energy, the short interconnect can let such |> energy across from one wiring to another. High frequency surge energy |> can then cause damage to sensitive electronics as a result. | . | Both guides emphasize short interconnection. None of the six EEs what | wrote the 2 guides indicates a problem. But they all probably had a | hidden agenda like Martzloff.

You need to divert the high frequency energy to somewhere. If the only path to ground is via the interconnect, then it has to be short. If the energy were ONLY LOW frequency, then each system taking its own conductor to the grounding electrodes would be sufficient, as long as the conductors are sufficiently large to avoid a big voltage drop.

But high frequency energy is a reality, even if people like Martzloff are trying to deny it. Maybe his agenda is to avoid having to give a very complex description of _why_ to do as he suggests (afterall, the general public doesn't understand things like frequency of wave energy).

The short interconnection is the way to go, because the other choices do not have any easy way to mitigate their issues. At least with a short interconnection, you can still prevent high frequency energy from going to the appliance devices by having appropriate inductance in the path, or adding supplemental capacitive grounding, or both.

| The EEs at the IEEE that peer reviewed the IEEE guide didn?t see a | problem. They probably had a hidden agenda too. | | Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited | transmission line characteristics. They don?t, as I previously posted | (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.

If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how, in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient. It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line.

Summary: all wiring has transmission line characteristics of some form

| You have posted no link to a source that agrees with you. There is no | common science on which to base further conversation.

Then I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.

| None of the 6 EEs that wrote the 2 guides agree with you. (But they all | had a hidden agenda.) The specific example of suppression with a plug-in | suppressor in the IEEE guide (which you probably haven?t read) was for a | common mode surge. You have no links that agree with you.

Where do you think the energy of a common mode surge goes, when it proceeds down a branch circuit (whether that is a branch of power, telephone, or TV coax), and reaches a point of use surge protector?

If it is telephone or coax, and the protector is connected to a power circuit where it sink the energy, then that is certainly a direction the energy can go. But if the common mode surge is arriving on the power circuit, where would it go from there? When you send it over the telephone or coax wiring?

The best you can hope for on a common mode power circuit surge is to send it backwards the way it came in. To do that you MUST have something that will appear to be a high impedance to the surge, while not being so to the power you want to pass through to the protected device. Or better yet, don't allow the high frequency to propogate to the branch circuits in the first place.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

. Poor w_?s religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

Like 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]."

And 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."

And from Martzloff: Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".

What did Martzloff mean w_? Never explained.

w_ just keeps repeating the same lies - a la Goebbels.

Still *never* 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?

- 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.

Reply to
bud--

. If w_ wasn?t such an idiot he would see that I was using the article as a valid source of information. I guess w_ doesn?t know what sarcasm is.

Reply to
bud--
.

It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line characteristics *for surges*. They don?t. (But Martzloff had a hidden agenda.) .

. You still have no sources for your version of ?physics? of surges. What a surprise. I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.

Reply to
bud--

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:42:51 -0600 bud-- wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:52:17 -0600 bud-- wrote: | . |> | Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited |> | transmission line characteristics. They don?t, as I previously posted |> | (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda. |> |> If you believe Martzloff (re: branch circuits do not have transmission |> line characteristics) then I challenge you and him both to explain how, |> in terms of PHYSICS, that this can be so. I have used NM 14/2 cable as |> a TV feedline before. It works. It works as well as twin line. It is |> stupid to waste such expensive cable when mere twin line is sufficient. |> It was a temporary measure at the time because I was out of twin line. | . | It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was | investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line | characteristics *for surges*. They don?t. (But Martzloff had a hidden | agenda.)

Then he flubbed the experiment. Is *HE* willing to disclose how he did the experiment? I can't be specific in challenging his errors if I do not know what it is he did. I can only challenge him in general.

|> | You have posted no link to a source that agrees with you. There is no |> | common science on which to base further conversation. |> |> Then I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences. | . | You still have no sources for your version of ?physics? of surges. What | a surprise. I guess PHYSICS is not one of your common sciences.

My sources for physics are college classes I have taken, as well as other readings in the past. Physics is one of my areas of understanding. I do not know all areas of physics, but I do know transmission lines. I do know an NM cable is a transmission line. It is not necessarily an ideal one. It has some rather low impedance (due to close conductor distance relative to conductor radius). It isn't constructed to have a uniform impedance. That can result in greater losses at higher frequencies due to reflections resulting in a reduced, and non-flat, response function. But it still is a transmission line; it just isn't an optimal one.

I could tell you how to construct a cable with AWG #14 or #12 or #10 wires that would behave well as a 300-ohm (characteristic impedance) transmission line. I don't remember the formula off the top of my head, but I know where to find it. But if you know about transmission lines, you could find it just as easily.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

Again Bud uses insults as technical proof. But Bud's citations say a protector needs that short connection to earth ground - where surge energy is dissipated.

If Bud could provide one plug-in manufacturer specification that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge .... Oh. Bud cannot provide what plug-in protector manufacturers will not even claim. No facts. So Bud posts insults.

Responsible companies (listed previously) sell a 'whole house' protector sufficiently sized, with a short and dedicated earthing connection. A 'whole house' protector does what NIST states:

Where is the part about "clamping to nothing"? Maybe the NIST also has a secret agenda? EE Times on 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007 in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" also defines earthing for protection. Oh. Somehow an electrical engineering publication also has a secret agenda?

Earth ground is where surge energy must be dissipated. A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Reply to
w_tom

. OK, I concede to w_ on the point I made above. w_'s source is invalid. .

. Poor w_ clings to his religious belief in earthing.

But he can?t explain why Martzloff said: "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]." And: "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." And: "Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".

w_ just keeps repeating the same lies - a la Goebbels.

Still *never* 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?

- 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.

Reply to
bud--

One source (not the only one) is:

formatting link
is a technical paper published by the IEEE. On transmission line behavior Martzloff writes: "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of classical transmission line behavior."

Houses don't have 200 meter branch circuits. In addition, the 1.2us rise time Martzloff used is not likely. The source impedance of wiring from the point-of-strike to a house attenuates the highest frequency components and gives a slower rise. The typical test surge, IIRC, is

8/20. That would require a much longer branch circuit.

---------------------------- Martzloff also writes: "Will the impinging surge be in the normal mode (black to white) or in the common mode ([black-and-white-to-green)?" This is not your definition of a common mode surge (but it is my definition).

Martzloff shows using 1-3 MOVs at the end of a branch circuit for surge suppression. He indicates none of the problems you say exist.

None of the 6 experienced EEs who wrote the guides agrees with you. (But they all probably had a hidden agenda.)

Where are your sources??? .

Apparently no degree in EE but you can accuse a respected electrical engineer, who has many published papers on surges and protection, of having a hidden agenda. .

"If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?"

Reply to
bud--

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.