Clothes Dryer Moisture Sensor

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.

Reply to
w_tom
Loading thread data ...

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:17:08 -0600 bud-- wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> 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. | . | One source (not the only one) is: |

formatting link
| This is a technical paper published by the IEEE.

He dismisses "short pulses" without an explanation of why. Maybe it could be that agenda thing?

He doesn't even address fast rise edge transitions.

| 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."

He is already assuming a slow rise impulse. This isn't applicable to the points I raised.

| 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.

"Houses don't have 200 meter branch circuits" ... certainly no _normal_ house would have anything close to that. OTOH, if they did, they would not have so much of an issue with surges as that long wiring would work in favor of attenuating the short rise pulses and edges that Martzloff so conveniently dismisses.

| ---------------------------- | 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).

Definitions of modes is, in part, a word game. There are many modes that can actually happen. They can all be described in terms of a combination of differential and common mode. The term "normal" might be a custom in this field of engineering, but it is a term within inherint meaning.

| 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.

Because in the remainder of this paper he isn't addressing them. He is addressing the slow rise impulses up to make a few hundred kHz equivalent frequency.

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

Either the hidden agenda, or maybe just a lack of interest in their part to explore the field of fast rise time pulses and edge transitions.

| Where are your sources???

Where are YOURS? You "came to a gun fight with a knife". Your evidence doesn't even deal with fast rise time issues.

|> 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. | . | 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.

You seem to be a good source of his papers. Maybe you've read many others. If so, maybe you would do better than I at finding what he has written on fast rise time issues (as opposed to the paper you offered that did not).

Or maybe he hasn't written any. Maybe his "hidden agenda" is merely his interest in researching low rise time impulses (after all, they do happen more often then fast rise time impulses, which generally require a direct strike on the service drop).

FYI, I'm talking about rise times on the order of 1000 volts per NANOsecond or faster.

|> not know all areas of physics, but I do know transmission lines. | . | "If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail?"

Pounding a screw into wood might not be very efficient, but it can get the screw into the wood.

A fast rise impulse/edge might not propogate on NM as well as it would on TV twin-lead, but it can still have significant damaging energy at the far end. Remember, normal houses don't have 200 meter branch circuits.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

. 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.

Reply to
bud--

. Because the points you raised are not relevant to real world surges. .

. A word game for you - the "physics of phil". Not for engineers. This is an engineering newsgroup. .

Martzloff, and others, are interested in science that applies to the real world. .

. So the hidden agenda of the 6 EE authors is that they are interested in real world surges. Martzloff has a paper on a direct strike to the primary on a power pole behind a house. The estimated average probability of a surge more severe is 1 in 8000 years. You are interested in events that take place at a house less than once in 8000 years. Real useful.

But Martzloff also has a paper on a lightning strike to the neutral at the service drop-to-riser connection. No mention of transmission line effects. Must be another hidden agenda (his third one?) .

. Martzloff deals in real world surges. Real world investigations have determined what real world surges look like. Martzloff has used surges from IEEE standards in his investigations.

Really sounds like your post is a CYA attempt. In any case, you have still given no sources. Including no sources for nanosecond rise times. I have furnished at least 3. You dismiss them because they do not apply to lala land where you reside. I am only interested in physics for the real world.

Reply to
bud--

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:53:52 -0600 bud-- wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:17:08 -0600 bud-- wrote: |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> 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. |> | . |> | One source (not the only one) is: |> |

formatting link
|> | 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." |> |> He is already assuming a slow rise impulse. This isn't applicable to the |> points I raised. | . | Because the points you raised are not relevant to real world surges.

And you didn't have a Martzloff quote/source for this absurd statement?

|> | ---------------------------- |> | 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). |> |> Definitions of modes is, in part, a word game. | . | A word game for you - the "physics of phil". Not for engineers. This is | an engineering newsgroup.

Maybe your special brand of engineering ignores sciences like physics.

|> |> 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. |> | . |> | 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. |> |> You seem to be a good source of his papers. Maybe you've read many others. |> If so, maybe you would do better than I at finding what he has written on |> fast rise time issues (as opposed to the paper you offered that did not). | . | Martzloff, and others, are interested in science that applies to the | real world.

And you've never seen a surge event involving a high rise transient? I have ... twice. And they make up 1/3 of surge events I have witnessed.

|> Maybe his "hidden agenda" is merely his |> interest in researching low rise time impulses (after all, they do happen |> more often then fast rise time impulses, which generally require a direct |> strike on the service drop). | . | So the hidden agenda of the 6 EE authors is that they are interested in | real world surges. Martzloff has a paper on a direct strike to the | primary on a power pole behind a house. The estimated average | probability of a surge more severe is 1 in 8000 years. You are | interested in events that take place at a house less than once in 8000 | years. Real useful. | | But Martzloff also has a paper on a lightning strike to the neutral at | the service drop-to-riser connection. No mention of transmission line | effects. Must be another hidden agenda (his third one?)

Why don't you write to him and ask him why it is he omits transmission line effects? While writing, ask him how much line inductance is needed to bring a direct strike into the the slow rise time ranges he studies.

|> FYI, I'm talking about rise times on the order of 1000 volts per NANOsecond |> or faster. | . | Martzloff deals in real world surges. Real world investigations have | determined what real world surges look like. Martzloff has used surges | from IEEE standards in his investigations.

They've missed a lot of reality.

| Really sounds like your post is a CYA attempt. In any case, you have | still given no sources. Including no sources for nanosecond rise times. | I have furnished at least 3. You dismiss them because they do not | apply to lala land where you reside. I am only interested in physics for | the real world.

I'm not currently studying this, so I have no sources right here. I did that kind of study around 25 years ago. I've confirmed it with some real world experiences seeing events that consist of either only high rise time or events that are apparently a combination (yes, you can have both at the same time, too).

To provide sources now, I'd have to spend the time to dig it up. But you are not worth that effort. I'm only arguing it now because it is brought up now. So if you want, you can skip offering any sources about real life lightning transient curves, and it can just be the two of us arguing, as this doesn't take much of my time.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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.

Reply to
w_tom

| 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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

. So to sum up:

Misuse of "common mode surge" - it is just a "word game".

Lack of any coverage of 'fast transients' by 6 EEs experienced in surges and surge suppression, and in the IEEE standards that define surge testing - "They've missed a lot of reality."

Expert engineer in field says branch circuits don?t exhibit transmission line effects - the expert doesn?t understand (perhaps another hidden agenda).

Total lack of sources - I studied it 25 years ago.

Apparently the only expert is phil (in phil's mind).

You are educated beyond your intelligence. Maybe at one of those schools where multiple realities are equally valid.

You have a bright, but alas short, future as a science advisor in the Bush administration. You can join w_ there.

Reply to
bud--

. 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 hasn?t 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_ can?t 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.

Reply to
bud--

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.

Reply to
w_tom

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.

Reply to
w_tom

| 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.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

| 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 just what does Martzloff think happens to the surge energy? Does he think it is just destroyed and ceases to exist?

| And poor w_ still hasn?t expla Really, I think it should be your responsibility to explain Martzloff since you're the one always promoting him.

| "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".

Easiest does not imply right.

But if the whole house protection is present, mosts of the problems a point of use protector could have won't come to it in the first place.

| And still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are | NOT effective. w_ can?t even find one source that agrees that plug-in | suppressors are NOT effective????

What good are links?

I have no interest in links to any comments by anyone that cannot explain WHY they think things are the way they are.

And how often does Martzloff provide links to other lunatics?

Point of use protectors can, by themselves without any whole house surge protection, in some cases, have a benefit. But in some other cases they can make things worse. However, when the whole house surge protection is present, the set of cases where point of use protection causes problems becomes a much smaller set.

| - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in | suppressors?

Did they ALSO have whole house protection at the same time?

| - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the | IEEE example, pdf page 42?

The IEEE didn't explain that in their document?

| Why no answers w_???

Maybe because he didn't write the document. IEEE did. Ask them.

| Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work.

There are cases where all three scenarios can be:

  1. They work and provide protection.
  2. They have no effect.
  3. They make things worse.

| For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in | suppressors are effective.

But they do NOT explain why. And bud seems to always think w_tom could explain why IEEE and NIST wrote these things.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

| So to sum up: | | Misuse of "common mode surge" - it is just a "word game".

It is not clear what your meaning is. Are you claiming that there is no such thing as a "common mode surge"?

| Lack of any coverage of 'fast transients' by 6 EEs experienced in surges | and surge suppression, and in the IEEE standards that define surge | testing - "They've missed a lot of reality." | | Expert engineer in field says branch circuits don?t exhibit transmission | line effects - the expert doesn?t understand (perhaps another hidden | agenda).

All conductors have transmission line effects. But at low frequencies where the transmission line length is a small fraction of the wavelength, these transmission line effects are insignificant. The distinction is the frequency.

| Total lack of sources - I studied it 25 years ago.

Did you study what makes a transmission line a transmission line?

| Apparently the only expert is phil (in phil's mind).

6 EE's that ignore the fast rise time transients that can be clearly recorded in UHF spectra are certainly no experts of the _whole_ field of surges. But maybe they have defined "surge" to be a subset of all the electrical risks that exist from lightning. That might be a lot easier than having to go bone up on transmission lines.

| You are educated beyond your intelligence. Maybe at one of those schools | where multiple realities are equally valid.

Which school would that be?

| You have a bright, but alas short, future as a science advisor in the | Bush administration. You can join w_ there.

It seems all science advisors have short futures in the Bush administration. Bush is like Bud. Both ignore science in favor of their political agenda.

Reply to
phil-news-nospam
.

. Already posted and ignored. And I already told you 3 times that I already told you.

But w_ doesn?t answer 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? .

. Intelligence is not w_. . >Bud cannot deny what

. On the contrary, I agree with 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: "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". Why did he write those things w_??? Why don't you answer questions??

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--

| On the contrary, I agree with 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: | "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".

"Easy" does not necessarily mean "best".

| Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work.

That's not bizarre at all. Made as a general statement, that claim is not true. However, there are CIRCUMSTANCES where a "point of use protectivce device doubling as a multi-tap power distribution device" can make things worse. Most of those circumstances would not have this issue if all the wiring of the house is done correctly and protected by whole house entry protection. The really bizarre claim: that these devices will always provide protection in all cases. My bet is that Martzloff is careful to show them being used in cases where they do provide protection.

| Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

If a source describes 1 or 2 or 3 circumstances where they ARE effective, do you take that to mean they are effective in all possible circumstances? I would not do so. My bet is that Martzloff is careful to show them being used in cases where they do provide protection.

| 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.

He has his errors. But in some postings he has made, he didn't post any.

| For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in | suppressors are effective.

Those papers are not science at all. They are merely a guide to what the authors believe are examples of solutions. They do not cover every possible scenario (which may be part of the agenda).

Reply to
phil-news-nospam

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.