If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
w_tom wrote:
If one has the necessary background knowledge, then nothing poted is contradictory. Most of what you post is contradictory babble. The remainder is slander. For example David Maynard still insists that a wall receptacle is earth ground because he does not even understand simple principles such as wire impedance, adverse effects created by sharp wire bends and splices (wires inside walls), induced transient effects on adjacent wires, and what that earth ground function really accomplishes. Another lie. What I explained to you is the voltage increase due to that impedance is essentially irrelevant to protecting the device as long as all incoming and outgoing lines are clamped to it, as there will be no excessive voltage across any device terminals: the only thing that matters to 'protecting' it. You apparently can't grasp the basic electrical fact that if the device sees no damaging voltage across any terminal it's connected to that it matters not where it is with respect to 'earth', or else no aircraft electrical system would ever work. And I'd love to hear w-tom explain how his '3 meter ground path' is absolutely essential to protecting an aircraft's electronics from lightning induced surges. For illustrative purposes, take a 3 terminal device. Terminal 1 is at 0 volts with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything going into and out of the device is as the same potential, 'earth': it's 'protected'. Now imagine terminal 1 is at 500 volts, with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything going into and out of the device is as the same potential, 500 volts: it's 'protected'. Not only is it 'protected' but it is seeing exactly the same situation as the one clamped to 'earth': no voltage potential between any terminals. The difference between our 'perfect' suppressor and the real world one is that the three terminals will not be at the exact same potential, in either example. They will, however, be within the clamping voltage of the suppressor (again, in both cases) and as long as that clamp voltage is less than the device's voltage tolerance then it is protected, in both cases. And it matters not if this 3 terminal device is in your home, or in an aircraft at 30,000 feet where w-tom's precious 'earth' is more than '3 meters' away. What w-tom does is take conditions and criteria that DO matter to a 'whole house' protector and then fallaciously claim that any device, of any type, and under any condition not only works the same way but needs to meet the same criteria. A 'whole house' protector, by it's nature, is not located at the device(s) being protected but at the service entry and the effective clamp voltage that interior devices will see is the voltage between earth, because of their (non existent, according to w-tom) earth connection in the wall plug (and/or neutral), and the power rails coming into them. The clamp voltage, that the interior devices will see is, then, the 'whole house' protector's clamp voltage PLUS the ground bump caused by impedance in IT'S earth connection. I.E. For a 'lousy' ground in violation of w-tom's '3 meters' in a (simplified) 'whole house' protector: power ------------------------------------------------- | | | interior 'whole house 500V clamp devices sees protector' | 1000 volts |500V bump | |from lousy | single tie |ground impedance | point ------------------------------------------------ | earth spike V local earth '0' The 500V is only for illustration with the amount of the ground bump being dependent on the wired ground impedance (why it should be SMALL) and the magnitude of the surge. That is wholly different than a 'local' protector: power ----------------------------------------- | ---- interior Plug-in device sees clamp ---- 330 volts | | surge current raises device | single tie ground relative to earth | point ---------------------------------------- | earth spike V local earth '0' Note that even though the device's 'earth ground' is much longer, and with much higher impedance, than the above 'whole house' protector it only sees a 'safe' 330 volts instead of the potentially damaging 1,000. (In both examples, for simplicity's sake, the traditional utility arc gap suppressors are not shown) In another misapplication, w-tom perpetually claims that the local protector is 'under sized' (as if they were all the same to begin with), citing his 'whole house' protector as 'proof' of it. But, again, the two situations are not equivalent. The 'whole house' protector, by the nature of it's (necessary) location at the input panel, has very little incoming wire impedance to limit the surge and so must be robust enough to handle very high currents. The 'local' protector, however, has significant wire impedance between it and the entry point (in fact, it is this 'excessive' wire length that w-tom claims makes the ground wire useless) to limit the magnitude of the current it must be capable of carrying in order to survive. w-tom's arbitrary claim that 'plug-in protectors' are 'under sized' is like saying a 30 foot yacht is 'under sized' for carrying two persons and citing the Queen Mary as 'proof' of it. In fact, he is a good myth purveyor for the plug-in surge protector manufacturer. Insufficient basic electrical knowledge and little appreciation for the *art* of earthing. Good description of yourself. David - first you confuse destructive transients with all other (and irrelevant) transients. Not in the least. Even a light switch can create a trivial transient - noise on a medium wave (AM) radio. Does that noise heard by an AM radio damage appliances? Of course not. But plug-in protector manufacturer will even site that as a transient to claim transients are created inside a buildling. The word is "cite." And what you 'claim' some unknown manufacturer 'cites' is irrelevant since the topic is the technology of it; not what some yahoo may, or may not, have written. Not to mention I wouldn't give 2 cents for it as you've already demonstrated that slander is your preferred means of 'discussion' Only relevant transients are the destrutive type that occur typically once every eight years. Why do all protectors - even plug-in type - ignore all voltages below 330 volts (on 120 VAC service) and 500 volts (on 230 volt service)? Because anything less is not a surge and is well below what any appliance must withstand - even LED clocks. Why did LED clocks not fail routinely? Because dstructive transient are so rare and are not created daily or weekly inside the building. No one ever claimed "destructive transient" happen "daily or weekly." That's nothing more than another one of your strawman babbles. snip of w-tom's continuing misapplication David Maynard wrote: Here's what the 'dispute' is between w_tom and me, on this point. He makes multiple, often contradictory, claims (whatever seems 'convenient' at the moment). He'll imply that surges from sources other than lightning simply don't happen (some statistics I've seen indicate that 80% of equipment damaging surges are from sources other than lightning). Or he'll claim that appliances (as if all are equivalent) are already protected from them (an apparent contradiction with their 'non' existence in the first place). Or, when given a direct example, will then make the '8 year' claim, which he then mischaracterizes as "across the country" in an obvious attempt to suggest '1 incident' per '8 years' occurs 'in the whole U.S.'. He'll claim that if your LED clock hasn't blow up yet then nothing ever will, regardless of what kind of device it is. Or that since your LED clock hasn't blow up then there could not possibly have ever been any surges, and never will be. It is those, and other, either mischaracterizations, irrational assertions or, in some cases, flat out lies that I dispute. To which he will then claim I said some absurdity that was never said nor implied. In this case, since I pointed out that non lightning related surges can, and do, happen he then claims (as above) that I said equipment damaging surges happen "daily" (the reason I supposedly sit here "worried" about them even though my "LED clock" still works rolling eyes) It is perhaps a flaw of mine that I have little tolerance for liars, and especially when they try to shove them down my throat. |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
Previously made was this silly claim that wire impedance
back to earth ground is irrelevant if all wires are clamped together to same voltage. Problem is, was the 'wire' called linoleum tile, concrete floor, wall paint, baseboard heat pipes, and everything else inside the room also clamped to that single point? That means the entire room must be constructed to become part of that single point connection. If not, then the entire clamping protection is compromised by the room. When a trivial 100 amp transient puts protector and adjacent computer at something approaching 13,000 volts, then those 13,000 volts find new conductors to earth. Not 500 volts. Thousands of volts. Is the ethernet cable connected from computer also via the adjacent protector? An even more expensive protector is required. IOW your system is implemented successfully when the building is constructed to protect transistors. But the standard home and office building compromises your theory. We still don't build as if the transistor exists. In theory, the 'single point adjacent connection' concept works. In reality, it becomes swiss cheese. Furthermore one must do same for every last electronic appliance in the building. Where is this $30 protector for each smoke detector, the dish washer, each GFCI (RCD)? Why advocate a solution that is not technically nor financially practical in a conventional buildings? Why advocate a solution that costs tens - maybe a hundred - times more than a 'whole house' with single point earth ground system? Facilities that use the 'single point adjacent connection' concept add a layer of protection only after the 'whole house' protector with superior earth ground is large, expensive, and cannot be further enhanced. First they put the money where it provides substantial protection - the 'whole house' system. Your concept is further explained in an IEEE Transaction on Electromagnetic Compatibility paper on 4 Nov 1998. Even rerouting cables out of the room is part of the protection system. Its all been done before. But who here has a facility that requires that extreme protection after the 'whole house' protection system has been installed? Money spent to implement single point for each appliance is better spent enhancing a building's earth ground system. Common voltage point in the room is a nice idea in theory. But the practical application is too expense for little protection provided. Even room reconstruction may be required. Just the plug-in protector alone is a major cost - tens of times more - in comparison to a 'whole house' protection system. You read that IEEE paper? What you propose is typically installed after the 'whole house' protection system is installed. Nothing new in your theory - that exists only to justify those overpriced, typically undersized, and ineffective plug-in protectors. Instead spend less money and protect everything using the well proven method - using a 'whole house' protector. Well, at least you now concede that the wall receptacle has too much impedance to earth ground - is all but disconnected from earth. How to make that plug-in protector partially effective? Cut its power cord very short and plug protector into receptacle attached to mains breaker box. It will have an earth ground connection. Plug-in protectors is still typically undersized. But at least the undersized protector can now earth surges; can contribute to protecting that computer upstairs in that room. David - again you bring up aircraft which was addressed previously AND which is totally irrelevant to terrestrial protection. You knew this. So why do you bring up this nonsense again? Is that the strategy of your company? To throw out massive, irrelevant information to confuse the lurkers? Is that how you promote your product lines? Shame on you. In your example - 500 volts to what? Even a most trivial 100 amp transient would leave everything at something less than 13,000 volts relative to earth ground. 500 volts between what and what? Effective protection is about earthing a transient before it can enter the building. Then protection already inside each appliance is more than sufficient to protect each appliance. A method so well proven that earthing and 'whole house' protectors was standard even in communication facilities before WWII. Why do you advocate expensive solutions that require the room to be reconstructed for every appliance? Is money no object? It is if you advocate plug-in protector solutions. David Maynard wrote: w_tom wrote: If one has the necessary background knowledge, then nothing poted is contradictory. Most of what you post is contradictory babble. The remainder is slander. For example David Maynard still insists that a wall receptacle is earth ground because he does not even understand simple principles such as wire impedance, adverse effects created by sharp wire bends and splices (wires inside walls), induced transient effects on adjacent wires, and what that earth ground function really accomplishes. Another lie. What I explained to you is the voltage increase due to that impedance is essentially irrelevant to protecting the device as long as all incoming and outgoing lines are clamped to it, as there will be no excessive voltage across any device terminals: the only thing that matters to 'protecting' it. You apparently can't grasp the basic electrical fact that if the device sees no damaging voltage across any terminal it's connected to that it matters not where it is with respect to 'earth', or else no aircraft electrical system would ever work. And I'd love to hear w-tom explain how his '3 meter ground path' is absolutely essential to protecting an aircraft's electronics from lightning induced surges. For illustrative purposes, take a 3 terminal device. Terminal 1 is at 0 volts with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything going into and out of the device is as the same potential, 'earth': it's 'protected'. Now imagine terminal 1 is at 500 volts, with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything going into and out of the device is as the same potential, 500 volts: it's 'protected'. Not only is it 'protected' but it is seeing exactly the same situation as the one clamped to 'earth': no voltage potential between any terminals. The difference between our 'perfect' suppressor and the real world one is that the three terminals will not be at the exact same potential, in either example. They will, however, be within the clamping voltage of the suppressor (again, in both cases) and as long as that clamp voltage is less than the device's voltage tolerance then it is protected, in both cases. And it matters not if this 3 terminal device is in your home, or in an aircraft at 30,000 feet where w-tom's precious 'earth' is more than '3 meters' away. What w-tom does is take conditions and criteria that DO matter to a 'whole house' protector and then fallaciously claim that any device, of any type, and under any condition not only works the same way but needs to meet the same criteria. ... |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
In article , w_tom
writes Previously made was this silly claim SLAP! *plonk* killfile-evading morph. Complaint made to . -- A. Top posters. Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
w_tom wrote:
That you found it imperative to snip the diagrams so you could continue promulgating this babble speaks volumes. Previously made was this silly claim that wire impedance back to earth ground is irrelevant if all wires are clamped together to same voltage. Problem is, was the 'wire' called linoleum tile, concrete floor, wall paint, baseboard heat pipes, and everything else inside the room also clamped to that single point? That means the entire room must be constructed to become part of that single point connection. If not, then the entire clamping protection is compromised by the room. Absolutely not, and that's nothing but more babble. When a trivial 100 amp transient puts protector and adjacent computer at something approaching 13,000 volts, then those 13,000 volts find new conductors to earth. Not 500 volts. Thousands of volts. Is the ethernet cable connected from computer also via the adjacent protector? An even more expensive protector is required. IOW your system is implemented successfully when the building is constructed to protect transistors. But the standard home and office building compromises your theory. We still don't build as if the transistor exists. There won't be any '13,000' volts, as I've proved before, and this too is nothing but another of your self invented babbles. In theory, the 'single point adjacent connection' concept works. In reality, it becomes swiss cheese. Furthermore one must do same for every last electronic appliance in the building. No, one 'mustn't' Where is this $30 protector for each smoke detector, the dish washer, each GFCI (RCD)? Why advocate a solution that is not technically nor financially practical in a conventional buildings? Why advocate a solution that costs tens - maybe a hundred - times more than a 'whole house' with single point earth ground system? Babble based on fallacious babble. Facilities that use the 'single point adjacent connection' For one, we're not talking about "facilities." Another example of you misapplying what 'might' be valid in one instance to all. concept add a layer of protection only after the 'whole house' protector shock You mean they use these things you've been saying are absolutely useless and promulgated only by morons, liars, cheats, and charlatans? My, my, my. with superior earth ground is large, expensive, and cannot be further enhanced. It isn't a matter of 'cannot be further enhanced'. A whole house protector has it's limits of applicability and appropriate use, just as anything in the real world does. First they put the money where it provides substantial protection - the 'whole house' system. Your concept is further explained in an IEEE Transaction on Electromagnetic Compatibility paper on 4 Nov 1998. Even rerouting cables out of the room is part of the protection system. Its all been done before. But who here has a facility that requires that extreme protection after the 'whole house' protection system has been installed? If you don't know, and you don't, then you shouldn't make blanket assertions. Money spent to implement single point for each appliance is better spent enhancing a building's earth ground system. Typical "false choice" logic fallacy that you so enjoy and routinely employ. No one ever suggested a 'protector' for each appliance, just YOU. Common voltage point in the room is a nice idea in theory. Works too. But the practical application is too expense for little protection provided. Quite inexpensive and the protection is as complete as a 'whole house' protector, for the appliance protected. Better, in fact, as the clamp voltage is lower, which is why reputable 'whole house' protector dealers recommend them for sensitive equipment in addition to their 'whole house' product. Plus, the 'whole house' protector isn't nearly as effective on local surges (the reason you keep falsely claiming they never happen). Even room reconstruction may be required. LOL Only if one is trying to do a proper 'whole house' system. Just the plug-in protector alone is a major cost - tens of times more - in comparison to a 'whole house' protection system. That is a plain lie. You read that IEEE paper? What you propose is typically installed after the 'whole house' protection system is installed. "Typically?" You mean they use these things you've been saying are absolutely useless and promulgated only by morons, liars, cheats, and charlatans? My, my, my. You mean the things you just finished saying were too expensive? Nothing new in your theory - I never said anything about it was 'new'. that exists only to justify those overpriced, typically undersized, and ineffective plug-in protectors. Instead spend less money and protect everything using the well proven method - using a 'whole house' protector. Except you just finished saying they were 'typically' used WITH a 'whole house' protector. Well, at least you now concede that the wall receptacle has too much impedance to earth ground - is all but disconnected from earth. I can't tell if that blatant falsehood is another lie or if you're just plain stupid. How to make that plug-in protector partially effective? Use it as it is for fully effective. Cut its power cord very short and plug protector into receptacle attached to mains breaker box. It will have an earth ground connection. Plug-in protectors is still typically undersized. Might be after YOU get though screwing it up. But at least the undersized protector can now earth surges; Works fine as it is. can contribute to protecting that computer upstairs in that room. There went your precious 'earth' again. David - again you bring up aircraft which was addressed previously AND which is totally irrelevant to terrestrial protection. Electronics behave the same whether 'terrestrial' located or in an aircraft. You knew this. So why do you bring up this nonsense again? Is that the strategy of your company? To throw out massive, irrelevant information to confuse the lurkers? Is that how you promote your product lines? Shame on you. I see you've fallen back into describing yourself again. In your example - 500 volts to what? Look in the diagram. Oh, wait. You snipped it out. I wonder why? Could it be so you can ask stupid questions like that? Even a most trivial 100 amp transient would leave everything at something less than 13,000 volts relative to earth ground. Yes, "something less than 13,000 volts relative to earth ground." A LOT less. 500 volts between what and what? Look in the diagram. Oh, wait. You snipped it out. I wonder why? Could it be so you can ask stupid questions like that? Here's a hint: It was in relation to YOUR 'WHOLE HOUSE' protector, dummy. Effective protection is about earthing a transient before it can enter the building. That's true for a whole house protector who's principle of operation IS that. It is NOT the operating principle of a plug-in protector. You're employing what's called a circular argument: I arbitrarily define this as that, so that is necessary to this. Then protection already inside each appliance is more than sufficient to protect each appliance. That's just a blanket assertion, false one I might add, with no substantiation whatsoever. A method so well proven that earthing and 'whole house' protectors was standard even in communication facilities before WWII. I don't live in "communication facilities" and 'whole house' earth protectors were NOT 'standard' in homes before W.W.II, nor are they 'standard' today. Another example of how you attempt to mislead with inapplicable babble. Why do you advocate expensive solutions that require the room to be reconstructed for every appliance? Is money no object? It is if you advocate plug-in protector solutions. Common smear tactic: to pose false choice questions composed of lies and misrepresentations. But I see you've embellished the approach by adding absurdity and babble to the mix. David Maynard wrote: w_tom wrote: If one has the necessary background knowledge, then nothing poted is contradictory. Most of what you post is contradictory babble. The remainder is slander. For example David Maynard still insists that a wall receptacle is earth ground because he does not even understand simple principles such as wire impedance, adverse effects created by sharp wire bends and splices (wires inside walls), induced transient effects on adjacent wires, and what that earth ground function really accomplishes. Another lie. What I explained to you is the voltage increase due to that impedance is essentially irrelevant to protecting the device as long as all incoming and outgoing lines are clamped to it, as there will be no excessive voltage across any device terminals: the only thing that matters to 'protecting' it. You apparently can't grasp the basic electrical fact that if the device sees no damaging voltage across any terminal it's connected to that it matters not where it is with respect to 'earth', or else no aircraft electrical system would ever work. And I'd love to hear w-tom explain how his '3 meter ground path' is absolutely essential to protecting an aircraft's electronics from lightning induced surges. For illustrative purposes, take a 3 terminal device. Terminal 1 is at 0 volts with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything going into and out of the device is as the same potential, 'earth': it's 'protected'. Now imagine terminal 1 is at 500 volts, with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything going into and out of the device is as the same potential, 500 volts: it's 'protected'. Not only is it 'protected' but it is seeing exactly the same situation as the one clamped to 'earth': no voltage potential between any terminals. The difference between our 'perfect' suppressor and the real world one is that the three terminals will not be at the exact same potential, in either example. They will, however, be within the clamping voltage of the suppressor (again, in both cases) and as long as that clamp voltage is less than the device's voltage tolerance then it is protected, in both cases. And it matters not if this 3 terminal device is in your home, or in an aircraft at 30,000 feet where w-tom's precious 'earth' is more than '3 meters' away. What w-tom does is take conditions and criteria that DO matter to a 'whole house' protector and then fallaciously claim that any device, of any type, and under any condition not only works the same way but needs to meet the same criteria. ... |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Blanket denials speculated by David Maynard don't prove
anything. He provides no underlying theory, no experimental evidence, and no numbers (a symptom of a junk scientists). He provides no industry professional citations. He just speculates to prove a plug-in protector must work. IOW if not working for a plug-in manufacturer, he sure does promote their half-truths vigorously. The method used in high reliability facilities such as cell phone towers, 911 emergency call centers, telephone Central Offices, commercial broadcasters, etc is the 'whole house' protector with single point earth grounding. Protection system even recommended by the National Institute for Science and Technology. System that protects internal appliance protection from being overwhelmed. For residential protection, it costs about $1 per protected appliance verses maybe $15 or $50 per for the grossly overpriced plug-in protectors recommended by David. Furthermore, 'whole house' protection protects everything include kitchen GFCIs and other kitchen appliances, dimmer switches, furnace controls, clock radios, smoke detectors, etc. No plug-in protector even mentions protection is required. Why? Plug-in manufacturers are not selling effective protection. They offer protection from one, typically nonexistent type of surge by selling grossly overpriced protectors. Substantial improvement at much less cost is the 'whole house' system that is based upon well proven principles - proven in both theory and generations of experience. A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground. To promote those ineffective, undersized, and grossly overpriced plug-in protectors, others must forget and avoid critical facts. They will even claim a wall receptacle safety ground is earth ground despite basic electrical engineering numbers to the contrary. They ignore other problems created by earthing transients inside the building including hidden and destructive paths to earth ground and other ground loop problems. They ignore internal protection that already exists inside appliances. They forget to mention how grossly undersized so many plug-in protectors are. Some so grossly undersized as to be damaged by a surge too small to overwhelm internal appliance protection. They even forget to mention the plug-in protector manufacturer does not claim protection from that type of transient. And most important, then they must disparage the messenger rather than provide technical facts and numbers. David Maynard does that repeatedly even in his latest post. The word 'babble' becomes his scientific reasoning. Provided were good 'whole house' solutions including products from Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, and Furse. Even Home Depot sells a minimally effective protector as Intermatic IG1240RC for about the price of one or two ineffective plug-in protectors. Just like Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752 - protection from lightning damage has always been about earthing the transient before it can enter the building. Principles apply both to lightning rods and to 'whole house' protection. Protection is defined by the earth ground - which plug-in protectors avoid discussing let alone connect to. No earth ground means no effective protection no matter how David Maynard tries to spin it. David Maynard wrote: w_tom wrote: That you found it imperative to snip the diagrams so you could continue promulgating this babble speaks volumes. Previously made was this silly claim that wire impedance back to earth ground is irrelevant if all wires are clamped together to same voltage. Problem is, was the 'wire' called linoleum tile, concrete floor, wall paint, baseboard heat pipes, and everything else inside the room also clamped to that single point? That means the entire room must be constructed to become part of that single point connection. If not, then the entire clamping protection is compromised by the room. Absolutely not, and that's nothing but more babble. When a trivial 100 amp transient puts protector and adjacent computer at something approaching 13,000 volts, then those 13,000 volts find new conductors to earth. Not 500 volts. Thousands of volts. Is the ethernet cable connected from computer also via the adjacent protector? An even more expensive protector is required. IOW your system is implemented successfully when the building is constructed to protect transistors. But the standard home and office building compromises your theory. We still don't build as if the transistor exists. There won't be any '13,000' volts, as I've proved before, and this too is nothing but another of your self invented babbles. In theory, the 'single point adjacent connection' concept works. In reality, it becomes swiss cheese. Furthermore one must do same for every last electronic appliance in the building. No, one 'mustn't' Where is this $30 protector for each smoke detector, the dish washer, each GFCI (RCD)? Why advocate a solution that is not technically nor financially practical in a conventional buildings? Why advocate a solution that costs tens - maybe a hundred - times more than a 'whole house' with single point earth ground system? Babble based on fallacious babble. Facilities that use the 'single point adjacent connection' concept add a layer of protection only after the 'whole house' protector with superior earth ground is large, expensive, and cannot be further enhanced. For one, we're not talking about "facilities." Another example of you misapplying what 'might' be valid in one instance to all. shock You mean they use these things you've been saying are absolutely useless and promulgated only by morons, liars, cheats, and charlatans? My, my, my. It isn't a matter of 'cannot be further enhanced'. A whole house protector has it's limits of applicability and appropriate use, just as anything in the real world does. ... |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
plonk plonk plonk
"w_tom" a écrit dans le message news: ... Blanket denials speculated by David Maynard don't prove anything. He provides no underlying theory, no experimental |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
w_tom wrote:
Blanket denials speculated by David Maynard don't prove anything. That's a grade AA jumbo joke coming from you, who's primary mode is 'blanket' babble and slander. I've not 'blanket' anything and that you are unable to comprehend the basic principles is your problem. He provides no underlying theory, no experimental evidence, and no numbers (a symptom of a junk scientists). He provides no industry professional citations. He just speculates to prove a plug-in protector must work. IOW if not working for a plug-in manufacturer, he sure does promote their half-truths vigorously. More lies. The method used in high reliability facilities such as cell phone towers, 911 emergency call centers, telephone Central Offices, commercial broadcasters, etc is the 'whole house' protector with single point earth grounding. Protection system even recommended by the National Institute for Science and Technology. System that protects internal appliance protection from being overwhelmed. I got news for you, pal, I don't live in a cell phone tower either and for you to assert that whatever a cell phone tower needs is precisely the ideal solution for everyone's home is EEG flat-line babble. For residential protection, it costs about $1 per protected appliance verses maybe $15 or $50 per for the grossly overpriced plug-in protectors recommended by David. You haven't got a freaking CLUE how many 'appliances' I have, not to mention which ones need protection, nor which ones I care to 'protect'. Nor are all 'whole house' protectors the same cost, the same type, nor do they offer the same protection. Of course that doesn't stop you from making blanket assertions of 'cost this' and 'cost that' for unspecified 'protection' from lord only knows what. Furthermore, 'whole house' protection protects everything include kitchen GFCIs and other kitchen appliances, dimmer switches, furnace controls, clock radios, smoke detectors, etc. You mean all those things you keep claiming don't need 'protection' because they have 'sufficient' protection built in? No plug-in protector even mentions protection is required. Why? Because only YOU are brain dead enough to suggest putting a surge protector on them. Plug-in manufacturers are not selling effective protection. Everybody sing together "blanket assertion." They offer protection from one, typically nonexistent type of surge by selling grossly overpriced protectors. More lies. Substantial improvement at much less cost is the 'whole house' system that is based upon well proven principles - proven in both theory and generations of experience. Everybody sing together "blanket assertion." A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That must explain why aircraft electronics surge protectors never work: that pesky 'earth ground' is 30,000 feet down and not even a high impedance wire to it either. Oh wait, but they do. That's the kind of nonsense you end up with when you make idiotic BLANKET ASSERTIONS. To promote those ineffective, undersized, and grossly overpriced plug-in protectors, others must forget and avoid critical facts. No, one simply need remember, and not forget, that w_tom uses slander and lies as a 'selling' tool. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it's what you do. They will even claim a wall receptacle safety ground is earth ground despite basic electrical engineering numbers to the contrary. And just where do YOU think it goes? Mars ground? They ignore other problems created by earthing transients inside the building including hidden and destructive paths to earth ground and other ground loop problems. "Hidden" and "other." Break out the voo-doo drums. Actually, what you're describing are the problems with 'whole house' protectors in large facilities, such as the "communication facilities" you keep claiming are ideal examples of what a home needs. They ignore internal protection that already exists inside appliances. No, YOU did when insisting people must purchase plug-in protectors for every one of them so you can generate your idiotic 'cost' numbers. They forget to mention how grossly undersized so many plug-in protectors are. They don't 'mention' it because it isn't true, regardless of how many times you babble that slander. Some so grossly undersized as to be damaged by a surge too small to overwhelm internal appliance protection. They even forget to mention the plug-in protector manufacturer does not claim protection from that type of transient. More lies. And most important, then they must disparage the messenger rather than provide technical facts and numbers. For you, from whom the first word out of mouth is to slander every manufacturer of plug-in protectors, to be complaining about being called on your babble is knee slapping hilarious. Doubly so when you append it right after a pile of slander. David Maynard does that repeatedly even in his latest post. The word 'babble' becomes his scientific reasoning. "Babble" is not a term of "scientific reasoning." It is, however, an accurate description of the reasoning YOU post. Provided were good 'whole house' solutions including products from Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, and Furse. I never said anything against 'whole house' protectors; Just against your slanderous babble that you apparently think is the 'preferred' means of selling something. Even Home Depot sells a minimally effective protector as Then why do you perpetually talk about 'whole house' protectors as if every one were identical, including those for a 'communications facility?" Intermatic IG1240RC for about the price of one or two ineffective plug-in protectors. The plug-in protectors are effective as well. Just like Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752 - protection from lightning damage has always been about earthing the transient before it can enter the building. Yes, if the only thing you want to do is protect from direct lightning strike an 18'th century building where the entire compliment of electrical devices is the lightning rod itself. Principles apply both to lightning rods and to 'whole house' protection. Just as the 'principle' of electron flow in lightning 'applies' to computer microchips, but you'd have to be pretty darn ignorant to think that's all there was to it. Protection is defined by the earth ground A device is 'protected' if there are no damaging voltages across any of it's terminals, regardless of how that's accomplished. News flash: the world doesn't snap to attention and change the definition of things just because you stick your pompous finger in the air and blanket declare it. - which plug-in protectors avoid discussing let alone connect to. More blanket slanderous lies. No earth ground means no effective protection no matter how David Maynard tries to spin it. And now Mr. Thinks_Your_House_Is_A_Cell_Phone_Tower calls the truth 'spin'. David Maynard wrote: w_tom wrote: That you found it imperative to snip the diagrams so you could continue promulgating this babble speaks volumes. Previously made was this silly claim that wire impedance back to earth ground is irrelevant if all wires are clamped together to same voltage. Problem is, was the 'wire' called linoleum tile, concrete floor, wall paint, baseboard heat pipes, and everything else inside the room also clamped to that single point? That means the entire room must be constructed to become part of that single point connection. If not, then the entire clamping protection is compromised by the room. Absolutely not, and that's nothing but more babble. When a trivial 100 amp transient puts protector and adjacent computer at something approaching 13,000 volts, then those 13,000 volts find new conductors to earth. Not 500 volts. Thousands of volts. Is the ethernet cable connected from computer also via the adjacent protector? An even more expensive protector is required. IOW your system is implemented successfully when the building is constructed to protect transistors. But the standard home and office building compromises your theory. We still don't build as if the transistor exists. There won't be any '13,000' volts, as I've proved before, and this too is nothing but another of your self invented babbles. In theory, the 'single point adjacent connection' concept works. In reality, it becomes swiss cheese. Furthermore one must do same for every last electronic appliance in the building. No, one 'mustn't' Where is this $30 protector for each smoke detector, the dish washer, each GFCI (RCD)? Why advocate a solution that is not technically nor financially practical in a conventional buildings? Why advocate a solution that costs tens - maybe a hundred - times more than a 'whole house' with single point earth ground system? Babble based on fallacious babble. Facilities that use the 'single point adjacent connection' concept add a layer of protection only after the 'whole house' protector with superior earth ground is large, expensive, and cannot be further enhanced. For one, we're not talking about "facilities." Another example of you misapplying what 'might' be valid in one instance to all. shock You mean they use these things you've been saying are absolutely useless and promulgated only by morons, liars, cheats, and charlatans? My, my, my. It isn't a matter of 'cannot be further enhanced'. A whole house protector has it's limits of applicability and appropriate use, just as anything in the real world does. ... |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry" wrote in message ... On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:10:40 +0100, Bagpuss wrote: On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:47:28 +0100, Lem wrote: snip Am I being too complacent? I've never used one. I've never had a surge blow anything either. My next door neigbour as one for her PC, but makes SFA difference. Of course in our house the fuse box has one of those quick trip over fueses where even if a light bulb blows you have to reset the trip switch, but even then its only ever the light bulb circuit that trips. We are the same with regard to the fuse box tripping out. I do have surge protectors on my PC equipment. For an extra few quid it seemed a good safety measure. Chances of a power surge are probably 5000 to 1. But wouldnt you feel silly if you were that 5000th person? At then end of the day its your call. Do you feel lucky? Just how many thunderstorms are we having compared with last year, and the year before? Hi Harry! Where are you located? UK? Australia? Hope you don't have as many thunder/lightning storms as we do here in Tampa, Florida in the good old US of A. It's like constant artillery fire around here. |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
"John McGaw" wrote in message .. . "Lem" wrote in message ... Are surge protectors on the main power supply actually needed in the UK? here in the UK we have few overhead mains power lines and have a relatively steady mains power supply when compared to many other countries (including the US). However there seem to be very many surge protector products advertised for sale in the UK (Argos, Maplins, etc). I am quite sure it is not bad practice to use a surge protector but in fact I have never known anyone who has has a problem from a surge coming in through the power supply. So personally I don't bother using a surge protector on my PC. Am I being too complacent? Do you live in an area where lightning is frequent? A lightning strike that is merely _near_ to an underground utility circuit can induce damaging voltages into them meaning that your power mains, telephone, and cable TV are all possible carriers. Admittedly there is no place in the UK that I've heard of that experiences the sort of storms that ravage parts of the USA, Flordia comes immediately to mind, but if you ever do have even one event then a small investment in protection would be invaluable. -- John McGaw [Knoxville, TN, USA] http://johnmcgaw.com Hi John! I am glad to see someone finally point out that overhead power lines and phone lines are much more apt to cause problems with lightning surges than are their underground equivalents. And also point out that amount of lightning strikes varies with geography. I don't know what it's like in Tennessee, but we sure have plenty in the Tampa, Lakeland, Daytona Beach across Florida as you point out. |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
"Cuzman" wrote in message ... "Lem" wrote in message ... " Am I being too complacent? " Think of this when you next take a ****. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/3457965.stm Hey Cuzman, the article was very interesting but I saw nothing relating it to lightning, but rather to a fault in HV cables beneath the public unit. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
power supply | Not so quick | General | 27 | January 22nd 04 12:21 AM |
Effective surge and spike protection for computers? | SQLit | General | 12 | December 6th 03 05:58 AM |
Dial up modem problem | Richard Freeman | General | 21 | September 22nd 03 05:50 AM |
Power Surge | David LeBrun | General | 44 | September 12th 03 02:35 AM |
Surge protectors with full warranty? | S.Heenan | General | 5 | August 14th 03 09:39 PM |