surge suppression

UL 1449 Second Edition effective February 16, 1998.
Voltage Limiting Test and Duty Cycle (Pulse Life) Test (UL Sections 34.9 and 34.11)
The clamping test is performed for L=96N, N=96G, L=96G, and L=96L connectio= ns. The TVSS device is subjected to an impulse surge of 6 kV and .5 kA, the limiting voltage is measured and recorded. The device is then subjected to ten consecutive 6 kV and 3 kA positive impulses at 60-second intervals and 10 consecutive 6 kV and 3 kA negative impulses at 60-second intervals. Following the Duty Cycle test, the TVSS device is subjected to another 6 kV and .5 kA impulse and the limiting voltage is measured and recorded. The average of the measured limiting voltage test is to fall within the minimum suppressed voltage ratings and is not to exceed the suppressed voltage rating by greater than 10 percent. Suppressed voltage ratings are 330, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900 V up to 6000 V. The impulse will be measured 6 inches (152 mm) from the device enclosure and will be the same for both non-modular and modular suppressors.
formatting link
from squared a name w_ can trust. bud is still correct
Reply to
fl_fly_boy
Loading thread data ...
. Apparently you understand the arguments as well as you did when you provoked the comment from trader4. .
. It was May 2 on a thread with remarkably similar arguments.
Apparently you understand the arguments now as well as you did when you provoked the comments from trader4.
"I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors, as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer protection and can be part of an effective solution."
And "I have to agree that this is Phantasy Physics."
Reply to
bud--
| Apparently you understand the arguments now as well as you did when you | provoked the comments from trader4.
I am for more able to carry on a discussion about the topic that you have tried to do. Instead of talking about something, where it might be possible to point out specific errors in your understanding, you prefer to just point at some document ... as if you understood that document. It may well be the case you don't understand what you point to. That may be related to why it does not seem to relate.
| "I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and do | a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the subject.
I have no interest in what he posts. He might be right or wrong and I don't care. Since _you_ are the one who is making _vague_ asserts and misapplying contents of other documents (that the document writer cannot defend because he is not here, or refute your usage), then it is _your_ postings that I have some interest in. My goal is to see if you can actually post _in_ your _very_ own _words_ something that suggests you have any understanding of this topic at all. I'm quite patient, so if you want to wait until year 2012 to post anything sensible, that's fine by me.
| The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-in surge | protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact actually | destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of both whole | house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors, as well as | other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer protection and | can be part of an effective solution."
Your statement is conditional on belief in someone else whom I do not consider to be an expert.
At least you have started to tone down your assertion a bit and bring it in the scope of reality. Yes, plug-in surge protectors can have a role in surge protection, and can do some of that protection even if nothing else is there.
| And "I have to agree that this is Phantasy Physics."
Physics is physics. If some specific thing I say is something you believe is not correct, then show me that _you_ understand it in a different way by saying what it is you believe I have stated in error, and state your belief of what is correct. I'm not interested in your reference to another document unless you can, for yourself, make a complete statement of exactly what it is you are arguing, so that the document is merely serving to support you (assuming you have not taken it out of context, which could happen if your really do not understand the topic).
For the sake of your own posting, start by assuming that everyone believes YOU are an expert. You could simply say someone is wrong. But that won't do any good for anyone. You should point out EXACTLY what is said wrong AND you should then state the CORRECT facts, all by yourself, just as if you were an expert. Then maybe we can figure out if your really understand it or not. Who knows, maybe people will start looking up to you as an expert if you can accomplish it.
Reply to
phil-news-nospam
You're on the wrong side of this one, once again, Phil. You don't seem to even care to read the recent threads on this subject, much less care about the history of w_'s silly quest for anyone who utters the word "surge" on the Usenet. The fact is that you're asking for information that was buried long ago (i.e. a buttinski).
Reply to
krw
Again Bud lies. w_tom has repeatedly stated a plug-in protector protects from a surge that typically is not destructive. A surge made irrelevant by protection inside appliances is also made irrelevant by one less expensive and superior 'whole house' protector.
IEEE, NIST, and numerous other sources say a plug-in protector - especially when a 'whole house' protector is not installed - can contribute to appliance damage. w_tom only repeats what they report. Bud denies this. Bud does not market 'whole house' protectors. Page 42 Figure 8 in Bud's citation. Plug-in protector earths surge energy 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. w_tom did not first say that. Bud's IEEE guide says that. Bud even lies about what his guide says. Profits are at risk.
Another industry professional says what effective protection does:
formatting link
A properly installed lightning protection system intercepts
Effective protecti> The best surge protection in the world can
Page 42 Figure 8 in Bud's IEEE guide shows an adjacent TV 8000 volts damaged because a plug-in (point of connection) protector does not make surge energy magically disappear. Same is the first conclusion in Martzloff's IEEE paper:
Bud denies what is common knowledge among industry professionals. An effective protector shunts (connect, clamp, divert) surge energy into earth. Since plug-in protectors don't do that, then plug-in protectors can only protect from surges that typically do no damage. Bud must lie. Lying, distorting facts, and posting insults are acceptable for marketing?
Where is that manufacturer spec that claims surge protection? No plug-in protector makes that protection claim - as Bud admits by his silence. Bud refuses to post what does not exist: protection claims. Bud will post mockery and insults while every responsible industry professional contradicts Bud. Bud even lies about what w_tom posted.
A plug-in protector is a solution for surges that typically cause no damage. Protection made further redundant by spending less money to install one 'whole house' protector. An effective solution is not promoted by irresponsible companies that only sell plug-in protectors - at obscene profit. What has the same protection circuit as a $150 Monster Cable protector? The $10 protector sold in grocery stores. Surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly in earth. Plug-in protectors do not claim to protect from that typically destructive surge - as Bud admits by his silence.
Reply to
w_tom
| |> |> |> | Apparently you understand the arguments now as well as you did when you |> | provoked the comments from trader4. |> |> I am for more able to carry on a discussion about the topic that you have |> tried to do. Instead of talking about something, where it might be possible |> to point out specific errors in your understanding, you prefer to just point |> at some document ... as if you understood that document. It may well be the |> case you don't understand what you point to. That may be related to why it |> does not seem to relate. | | You're on the wrong side of this one, once again, Phil. You don't | seem to even care to read the recent threads on this subject, much | less care about the history of w_'s silly quest for anyone who | utters the word "surge" on the Usenet. The fact is that you're | asking for information that was buried long ago (i.e. a buttinski).
Yet, no one ... NOT EVEN YOU ... dares so much as to say specifically what I am wrong about. And that's the whole point of why this thread just keeps on going, because you guys just don't, or can't, actually defend your position with your own understanding of the topic (which seems to be lacking quite a but in Bud and Tom, and remains to be seen in KRW).
Reply to
phil-news-nospam
. With minimal mental ability poor w_ could have seen the quote is from someone else.
w_ then repeats the usual drivel, debunked many times.
Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are not effective.
Still never answered - embarrassing questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the IEEE guide say in an example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Reply to
bud--
Who should be believed? The sales promoter who refused to admit what he does - or the engineer who designed this stuff even decades ago, who suffered direct lightning strikes, and who saw the simple, well proven, protection work every time.
Why does Bud post insults? Not one plug-in protector claims protection from each type of surge. Even the sales promoter cannot find a single spec that makes his claims. That is what Bud does. Lie. Insult. Confuse. Disparage. Misrepresent. Deny. Even his own citations show a problem with plug-in protectors - especially when one 'whole house' protector is not installed. Page 42 Figure 8. Plug-in protector did not make surge energy disappear as Bud claims. It earthed that surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV.
Bud's other citation says same. NIST citation on Adobe page 19 of 24:
Bud says earth grounding need not exist. His plug-in protectors magically make surge energy disappear. Why do we know this? Bud posts mockery and insults - and still cannot post a single manufacturer spec that claims such protection. Where is that protection spec? Does not exist. No earth ground means no effective protection.
What does every high reliability facility spend their money on? Plug-in protectors? Of course not. They upgrade the earthing and install a 'whole house' protector as close to that earth ground as is practicable. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A reality stated without insults. A reality found where ever surge damage can not happen. The best and least expensive solution for every building.
Reply to
w_tom
. w_ is so pathetic. .
. Poor w_ is insulted by reality. .
. Specs were provided long ago and ignored, as always. .
The lie repeated. .
. As always poor w_ tries to twist what the guides say. What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are the "easiest solution". .
. w_ is not smart enough to figure out what anyone says so he invents what people say. .
. w_'s religious mantra will keep him safe from doubt and conflicting ideas.
Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are not effective.
Still never answered - embarrassing questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the IEEE guide say in an example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Reply to
bud--
I did, dickhead. You're completely wrong about this entire thread.
Reply to
krw
rote:
This has been a very interesting discussion. I have to say as a technician myself alot of this is a bit more than we ever covered at RCA Institutes 40 years ago but valuable and interesting information. We learned electronics. Not particularly what anomolies did to electronics. Sure there were always transients but tubes could take an awful lot of abuse. Unless your antenna was the only thing on the top of a mountain, lightning damaged equipment was hardly ever an issue But several things still bug me though. When dealing with high frequency transients for instance that come in over power lines how does one get through the huge low Z "sponge" of a 60HZ power transformer? If you've ever tried to use one of these for audio isolation in a pinch it sounds like crap, and thats only asking about 7KHZ response out of it. We had the indicator circuit on the secondary side of a big power conditioner isolation transformer wiped out during a storm. The windings however survived. Why didn't they absorb the transient? I've worked in many aspects of electronics during the course of my career, including military and industrial, and although I am certainly no expert by any means, one thing I feel that I am qualified to comment on, having been involved in TV repair for over 45 years is consumer electronics of the 1970's. TV receivers of that era all had massive power transformers. This is illegal today in the interest of efficiency. Today, a poor little undersized flyback transformer supplyiing on its secondary, scan derived power supplies has to do it all. Most of the older sets had linear regulators if any regulators at all. Sony and RCA started employing SCR's in their designs and the plot thickened quickly. But what I had intended to say though and what I have to conclude was that with the addition of the the low impedance that the transformer presented to the AC line the occurance of lightning related damage due to high frequency transients of the type most commonly seen during a storm was a fraction of what it is today. And there was enough CMOS in alot of that equipment. In a modern TV set a transient blows right through the SMPS and winds up at the High voltage section taking out the horizontal output transistor and very often the flyback and related components as well. Many sets have an inductor in series with the AC line. Some RCA's use a toroid. There is often a capacitor across the "output" of the inductor. Rarely are MOV's or anything further for that matter ever employed. I tried to use similar components in my filter and added the MOV's. I would like to mentiom that I also see many TV sets come in with only two diodes of the bridge shorted. Its often either the two on one side of the bridge or the two other ones depending on which two were conducring at that portion in time the transient occurred apparently. The transient presumably goes to chassis ground or building neutral through the two conducting diodes, and two new diodes and a fuse fixes the set. One other thing. If the nature of a lightning derived transient is so unpredictable then how can one possibly design a reliable countermeasure to address it. We really don't know the exact frequency, amplitude, or duty cycle for that matter, so is it perhaps just a best guess? I've tried to do this with the circuit I constructed, which basically and admittedly, I "pulled out of my ass". So far we've had some storms and the panel is still alive, but certainly the Summer is only half over and we're a long way from hearing the fat lady sing. Lenny
Reply to
captainvideo462002
| |> |> | |> |> |> |> |> |> | Apparently you understand the arguments now as well as you did when you |> |> | provoked the comments from trader4. |> |> |> |> I am for more able to carry on a discussion about the topic that you have |> |> tried to do. Instead of talking about something, where it might be possible |> |> to point out specific errors in your understanding, you prefer to just point |> |> at some document ... as if you understood that document. It may well be the |> |> case you don't understand what you point to. That may be related to why it |> |> does not seem to relate. |> | |> | You're on the wrong side of this one, once again, Phil. You don't |> | seem to even care to read the recent threads on this subject, much |> | less care about the history of w_'s silly quest for anyone who |> | utters the word "surge" on the Usenet. The fact is that you're |> | asking for information that was buried long ago (i.e. a buttinski). |> |> Yet, no one ... NOT EVEN YOU ... dares so much as to say specifically what I |> am wrong about. And that's the whole point of why this thread just keeps on |> going, because you guys just don't, or can't, actually defend your position |> with your own understanding of the topic (which seems to be lacking quite a |> but in Bud and Tom, and remains to be seen in KRW). | | I did, dickhead. You're completely wrong about this entire thread.
Neither did you ... say SPECIFICALLY. You, like these other guys, just like to say someone is wrong. Sometimes you say that _everything_ is wrong (which is putting yourself _way_ out on a limb to show that each and everything said is in fact wrong by at least saying what is right).
You can start by taking every statement I've say and substituting what it is you think is right. Be sure to be complete and cover all statments to support your "completely wrong about this entire thread" assertion.
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.