Clothes Dryer Moisture Sensor

| 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.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

. 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 didnt see a problem. They probably had a hidden agenda too.
Martzloff specifically looked at whether branch circuits exhibited transmission line characteristics. They dont, as I previously posted (ignored of course). But we all know Martzloff had a hidden agenda.
w_s link at http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807127 doesnt 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 havent read) was for a common mode surge. You have no links that agree with you.
--
bud--

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

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

. 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.
--
bud--

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

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

. If w_ wasnt such an idiot he would see that I was using the article as a valid source of information. I guess w_ doesnt know what sarcasm is.
--
bud--

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

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

. 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 cant 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.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net 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.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
.

. It should have been obvious from the context that Martazloff was investigating if branch circuits exhibit transmission line characteristics *for surges*. They dont. (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.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net 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.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

. One source (not the only one) is: http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/spd-anthology/files/Propagation%201983.pdf This 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?"
--
bud--

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

Then we include the entire circuit. It's not just the branch circuit. Wires down the street and maybe three miles of electrical (plasma) connectors to the cloud. Maybe even four miles of conductor through the earth. Surges are an electrical circuit from cloud through house and earth. That circuit would be a more than 0.15 miles.
Transmission line is too short if discussing a trivial surge that a plug-in protector might protect from. But we are not discussing surges made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances. Discussed are a type of surge that typically causes damage. That electrical circuit might be seven miles long. And still, that current source (surges are typically current sources) must find a path from cloud to earthborne charges. Voltages will increase as necessary so that surge current will flow. Either current creates trivial voltage if earthed via a low impedance ground connection. Or current may create (for example) 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV (Page 42 Figure 8).
That lossy 'transmission' line also induces surges on adjacent wires if permitted inside a building. Other wires bundled with that surge wire (wire going to a plug-in surge protector) may also suffer from surge currents connected capacitively or inductively. Just another reason for earthing surges; keeping surges outside a building. Better protection means the seven mile circuit from cloud to earth does not enter a building. Then the 'transmission line' from cloud, through utility wires to earth does not include household wiring.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. Instead of embarrassing yourself with a whole new set of inanities maybe you could stick to the simpler stuff.
Like - why did Martzloff say: "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".
And where is your link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
And answers to simple questions: - 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.
--
bud--

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

Then Martzloff provides the bottom line conclusion that Bud must ignore - otherwise profits will be at risk:

A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even contribute to adjacent appliance. Damage also demonstrated by another Bud source. Page 42 Figure 8: surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV. Plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. No wonder that protector recommended by Bud does not even claim to provide protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Every responsible facility connects an even better earth ground, short (ie less than 10 feet), to their protectors AND don't use plug-in protectors promoted by Bud.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even contribute to | adjacent appliance. Damage also demonstrated by another Bud source. | Page 42 Figure 8: surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through | the adjacent TV. Plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too | far from earth ground. No wonder that protector recommended by Bud | does not even claim to provide protection. A protector is only as | effective as its earth ground. Every responsible facility connects an | even better earth ground, short (ie less than 10 feet), to their | protectors AND don't use plug-in protectors promoted by Bud.
In the case of the protector being attached to something other than the power branch circuit, that certainly can shift the surge from the other wiring (antenna lead, cable TV, telephone, etc) to the power wiring, and on into other appliances near there on the same circuit. It can also put the surge back on the panel, but if it is the main panel, at least it has a better path to ground there. As part of an overall good design strategy for surge protection, point of use protectors do help reduce the risk of damage from a surge. But in cases where the whole system is not properly designed, then these protectors (and even some other things otherwise intended to protect) can actually cause more harm. The key is to design the whole system right. Then these protectors can supplement that protection for the few things a whole house system cannot catch.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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
On Mar 14, 7:13 pm, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Problems with point of use protectors: First, if the major surge is not earthed before entering a building, then the plug-in protector can contribute to appliance damage - make that damage easier. Unlike Bud, I designed things. In one stunningly educational location, two plug- in protectors earthed a lightning strike through two adjacent computers, through the network, and out to earth ground via a third computer. Had plug-in protectors not been there, then all three powered off computers would not suffer damage. Surge permitted in the building and on the black wire was shunted (clamped, diverted, connected) to green safety ground wires by a plug-in protector. Surge was connected to earth ground, destructively through computers, by the protector. We literally traced the surge circuit and replaced all parts in that circuit to earth ground. All computers were restored to normal operation. The plug-in protector earthed surges through adjacent computers because the protector was too close to electronics and because the necessary 'whole house' protection was not earthing.
Without the 'whole house' solution, plug-in protectors can do more damage. Bud says plug-in protectors alone are sufficient protection.
Second, all appliances contain internal protection. The plug-in protector does provide protection from some types of transients. But most all those transients are made irrelevant by protection already inside all appliances. Protection that can be subverted (bypassed) as demonstrated in point one.
Third, the plug-in protector can make appliance damage easier when a 'whole house' protector and earthing are not installed. But then the problem gets worse. For example another result is 'scary pictures'. 'Scary pictures' are just another problem with plug-in protectors that are often grossly undersized (to maximize profits) and located where fire danger is highest. 'Scary pictures' are another reason why a properly earthed 'whole house' protector is still required.
Fourth, for all that money spent on plug-in protectors, better is to spend that money upgrading the earthing system. Many if not most homes do not have sufficient earthing. Earthing must both meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements no matter what protector is used. Unfortunately something like one in ten of the oldest homes have been observed missing any earth ground. Money is better spent on what provides protection rather than spending $25 for a $3 power strip containing some ten cent parts - to supplement what is not yet installed. Plug-in protectors are not the complete protection solution that Bud claims. They are only supplemental to a 'whole house' solution - and cost how much?
Fifth, a power strip protector is for one type of surge. How frequent or destructive are these differential mode transients? Well how often is the homeowner replacing GFCIs and dimmer switches? Extremely rare. We spend tens or maybe 100 times more money on protectors for a type of surge that rarely causes damage? Meanwhile one 'whole house' protector so reduces this type of surge as to convert an 'almost never damaged' dimmer switch into 'never damaged'. Just another reason why money is better spent where protection is so much more effective.
Yes, the plug-in protector can do something. But those 'somethings' are made so irrelevant by installing and earthing the effective solution. But the effective solution is necessary if or if not using plug-in protectors. Best money buys a 'whole house' protector for all types of surges. Most important, upgrades earth ground that is too often insufficient for any protection and missing in the oldest homes. Bud says earthing is not necessary - that 'clamping to nothing' is sufficient protection. Bud denies a 'whole house' protector is necessary when using plug-in protectors. Bud denies because Bud promotes obscenely profitable plug-in protectors.
Why do major facilities (ie telco COs) not install plug-in protectors? Yes, a plug-in protector has some purpose. But less money for better protection is spent on the earthing system and on one protector for all types of surges ('whole house' type). Even plug-in protectors require proper earthing and a 'whole house' protector - in direct contradiction to what Bud claims.
Best solution has always been to earth a typically destructive surge before it can enter the building. Same soltuion makes irrelevant those other and lesser transients. Same solution is also necessary if using plug-in protectors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Problems with point of use protectors: First, if the major surge is | not earthed before entering a building, then the plug-in protector can | contribute to appliance damage - make that damage easier. Unlike Bud,
Yes. That's why, by themselves, point of use protectors don't do much good and can actually make things worse.
| Without the 'whole house' solution, plug-in protectors can do more | damage. Bud says plug-in protectors alone are sufficient protection.
For the most part they are a shunt device ... they shunt the surge energy over to somewhere else. If that somewhere else isn't ground, guess what.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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
w_tom wrote:

. Ho-hum. The village idiot again omits what Martzloff really wrote about plug-in suppressors in that technical paper: "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 poor w_ still hasnt explained why Martzloff wrote: "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".
And still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. w_ cant even find one source that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective????
And no answers to simple questions: - 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? 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

Bud has no technical facts. Where does a plug-in protector claim to provide surge protection in manufacturer specs? Bud is challenged repeatedly to cite those numbers. Bud cannot post specifications that never exist. No plug-in manufacturer will make those protection claims. Bud does as Goebbels did. Bud proves his claims using propaganda and insults. So Bud - where is that spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge? Bud is a promoter who will say anything to protect those profits. Honesty is not Bud.
Even the NIST and IEEE say that earthing - not some magic box protector - provide protectioin. Bud even has a problem with those bluntly stated facts. Honesty is not Bud. Even Martzloff says the adjacent protector can harm an appliance. Bud cannot deny what Martzloff says. Bud does the only thing he can: spin half truths and post insults. Buy a plug-in protector because Bud is such a nice guy.
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.