|
Science Forum Index » Electronics - Basics Forum » Easy Question - I Hope...
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| w_tom... |
 Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 26, 1:40 am, bud-- <remove.budn... at (no spam) isp.com> wrote:
Quote: The 2nd TV suffers 8,000V because a surge comes in on a cable service.
Without a surge suppressor at the TV1 the voltage would have been
10,000V. The suppressor at TV1 causes no damage to TV2.
Bud says you must install $2000 or $3000 of surge protectors
throughout the building. But IEEE says that surge on Page 42 Figure 8
damaged TV2 - 8000 volts destructively - because a surge was not
earthed before entering the building. Let's see. $3000 for plug-in
protectors or $1 per protected appliance for the effective solution.
And the effective solution even protects from the type of surge that
typically causes damage. None of those plug-in protectors claim to
protect from that type of surge.
The IEEE is quite blunt about this in numerous standards. That
surge energy must be dissipated. Bud says a plug-in protector will
absorb or 'magically' make surge energy disappear. IEEE (and NIST, US
Air Force, numerous IEEE authors, etc) all say that surge energy must
be connected to (dissipated in) earth so that 8000 volts does not find
earth ground destructively via TV2.
Why does Bud recommend $3000 of plug-in protectors? Profits. An
honest Bud would have posted that plug-in manufacturer spec that lists
protection from each type of surge. He refuses. No plug-in protector
lists protection from surges in numeric specs. Why should they?
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. One 'whole
house' protector properly earthed means that surge need not destroy
TV2 with 8000 volts. This 'whole house' solution is called secondary
protection. Bud also forgets to mention primary protection. Those
who want real protection would also inspect their primary surge
protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
What is fundamental to the primary protection system? Same thing
necessary for the secondary protection system: earth ground. A
protector without that dedicated earthing somehow protects from
typically destructive surges? Only in myths. No wonder Bud still
cannot provide that manufacturer spec that claims protection. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bud--... |
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
w_tom wrote:
Quote:
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
The usual drivel. And the required statement of religious belief in
earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective.
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.
And 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"?
--
bud-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bud--... |
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ken wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 26 May 2008 00:33:44 -0500, bud-- <remove.budnews at (no spam) isp.com
wrote:
Ken wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2008 10:07:38 -0500, bud-- <remove.budnews at (no spam) isp.com
wrote:
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing.
That's true that effective surge protection must use earthing.
Quote: w_ says that surge protectors must directly use earthing. Since plug-in
suppressors do not usually have a low impedance path to earth, w_ says
plug-in suppressors can not work.
The example in the IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) shows plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires (power
and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage between
the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected
equipment. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing a
surge. Earthing occurs elsewhere in the system. If this is not clear
read the example.
Effective or not effective surge protection.
That's the difference.
By which you seem to be saying plug-in suppressors are not effective.
With plug-in suppressors, the voltage between wires (power and signal)
going to protected equipment is limited to a value safe for that equipment.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The
IEEE guide has only 2 examples of surge suppression. Both use plug-in
suppressors.
--
bud-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| w_tom... |
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 6:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 27, 11:46 am, bud-- <remove.budn... at (no spam) isp.com> wrote:
Quote: Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The
IEEE guide has only 2 examples of surge suppression. Both use plug-in
suppressors.
Why does Page 42 Figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing 8000
volts destructively through an adjacent TV? Bud conveniently forgets
what his own citations say.
Having an 8000 volt surge inside the building is acceptable? Of
course not. The point of Bud's citations: a protector without
earthing may even contribute to appliance damage. A properly earthed
'whole house' protector means no such damage should occur. That
'whole house' protector means everything is protected without spending
$3000 on Bud's plug-in protectors. Did Bud forget to mention how much
he recommends spending for plug-in protectors? Bud tends to forget
many embarrassing details.
Page 42 Figure 8 (like all of Bud's citations) shows why plug-in
protectors provide ineffective protection from the typically
destructive surge. Every Bud citation says an effective protector
earths before destructive surges can enter a building. A protector
too far from earth ground and too close to appliances may even
contribute to damage of that appliance - 8000 volts destructively -
Page 42 Figure 8. Bud conveniently forgets that part.
A protector recommended by Bud - he still refuses to provide a
manufacturer spec that claims protection. Bud cannot provide what
even the manufacturer does not claim. So Bud will post the same myths
incessently to get the last post. Otherwise profits may be at risk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bud--... |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 3:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
w_tom wrote:
Quote: On May 27, 11:46 am, bud-- <remove.budn... at (no spam) isp.com> wrote:
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The
IEEE guide has only 2 examples of surge suppression. Both use plug-in
suppressors.
Why does Page 42 Figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing 8000
volts destructively through an adjacent TV? Bud conveniently forgets
what his own citations say.
It is w_’s favorite lie.
Repeating:
The 2nd TV suffers 8,000V because a surge comes in on a cable service.
Without a surge suppressor at the TV1 the voltage would have been
10,000V. The suppressor at TV1 causes no damage to TV2.
The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service 'ground' is too long (a common problem). The IEEE guide says in
that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to *use
a multiport [plug-in] protector*."
Quote:
A protector recommended by Bud - he still refuses to provide a
manufacturer spec that claims protection.
Specs provided often and ignored.
And I recommend only accurate information. The OP asked about using a
plug-in suppressor to protect a TV. One of the 2 examples of protection
in the IEEE guide uses a plug-in suppressor to protect a TV. (The other
uses a plug-in suppressor to protect a computer. Both have associated
equipment.)
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.
Why doesn’t anyone agree with you w_??
And 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"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug–in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| w_tom... |
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 3:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 28, 4:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn... at (no spam) isp.com> wrote:
Quote: For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug–in
suppressors are effective.
Quoted repeatedly from both his IEEE and NIST Guide are what they
say - contradicting what Bud posts. A protector is only as effective
as its earth ground. A protector without earthing may even earth 8000
volts destructively through adjacent appliances - Page 42 Figure 8.
And again Bud refuses to provide any manufacturer specs that claim a
plug-in protector provides any protection. Well, it does provide
protection ... from a type of surge that typically does not damage
appliances. So plug-in manufacturers do not claim any protection in
numeric specs. Bud cannot post those numbers, perverts what even his
own IEEE and NIST guides say, deny what virtually every responsible
science source says, and ....
Bud has again posted the same myths and lies to get the last post.
If he is last to post, then you might spend tens or 100 times more
money for his ineffective and obscenely overpriced protectors. Bud
has again cut-and-pasted the same replies. Profits are at risk if you
read the facts and numbers rather than just read the tone and
hyperbole.
Bottom line fact - a protector without that dedicated earth ground
cannot and does not claim to protect from typically destructive
surges. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Earthing is why one ‘whole house’ protector does more than $3000 of
plug-in protectors. No problem. Plug-in protectors with obscene
profit margins means protection is irrelevant. Therefore Bud will cut-
and-paste those his half truths. Profits are at risk.
Bud's citation: Page 42 Figure 8 - that plug-in protector is
effective at earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV. Surges must be earthed somewhere - either before
entering a building or destructively via household appliances. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bud--... |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
w_tom wrote:
Quote: On May 28, 4:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn... at (no spam) isp.com> wrote:
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug–in
suppressors are effective.
Quoted repeatedly from both his IEEE and NIST Guide are what they
say - contradicting what Bud posts.
Still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
(One of the examples is for a TV - exactly what the OP asked about.)
Quote: A protector is only as effective
as its earth ground.
The required religious mantra.
Unfortunately for w_ the he IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors
work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the
common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
Quote: A protector without earthing may even earth 8000
volts destructively through adjacent appliances - Page 42 Figure 8.
The lie repeated yet again.
Quote:
Bud has again posted the same myths and lies to get the last post.
w_ has again posted the same myths and lies to get the last post.
w_ must defend his religious belief in earthing or his universe will
collapse.
I am waiting for w_ to post a source that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you w_???
And I am waiting for answers to simple 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 "the only effective way of protecting the
equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
Why no answers to simple questions w_???
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug–in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud-- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tomlinson... |
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <36582e47-14c5-42c4-9d91-548bd5f0baec at (no spam) f24g2000prh.googlegroup
s.com>, w_tom <w_tom1 at (no spam) usa.net> writes
Quote: Whit3rd claims protectors somehow absorb surges. Show me. Where
are these numbers? Protection is not by absorbing surges as Whit3rd
posts.
You're lying again.
NOTHING in whit3rd's post refers to absorbing surges. He uses the word
'shunt' in the context of surge suppression, which indicates that he
knows how they work (conducting a surge elsewhere).
w_toms's usual modus operandi: lies, misinformation, and deliberate
twisting of what others say.
--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
(")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
