Lightning protection

[Bud--]

Two examples; but only one is a plug-in protector.

“6. Specific Protection Examples”
“6.1 Home Theater with Satellite Receiver or CATV Feed”
“Figure 11: Application of Plug-in Multi-port Protectors”
uses a multiport plug–in suppressor
“6.2 PC with Cable Modem and Wireless Link”
“Figure 12: Connection diagram showing a multi-port”
uses a multiport plug-in suppressor

And where is your explanation of why the guide has an example with even
1 plug-in suppressor????

Why does a point-of-use protectors need protection? It is
undersized. It costs how much and may still create these 'scary
pictures'?
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

The lie repeated. w_’s hanford link said UL fixed the overheating
problem. That was in 1998.

But then page 31 of 61 also states what is necessary for all
protection. Why does Bud routinely ignore this paragraph 2.3.1?

With minimal reading ability w_ could determine this section is about
installing service panel surge protectors.

So we arrive at Bud's "second example". That example is Page 42
Figure 8 where a plug-in protector applies 8000 volts destructively to
the TV.

The second lie, repeated often.

The point of the illustration to anyone but w_ is "to protect TV2, a
second multiport protector located at TV2 is required"."

Provide an explanation of how the plug-in suppressor made the condition
at the distant TV [8,000V] any worse than if the plug-in suppressor was
not present [10,000V].

A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage
on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor,
not earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the
guide starting pdf page 40).

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it.
The question is not power service suppressors - they are a good idea.
The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work - Both the IEEE
and NIST guides say they do. Read the sources.

Still no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT effective.
Still only bizarre ideas based on religious beliefs. If plug-in
suppressors didn’t work there would be thousands of links.
*Why no links to sources w_?*

And still no answers:
- 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 Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”
*Why no answers w_?* All you do is change the subject and twist sources.


Still a bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Still no sources that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Still twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really
say -hanford, IEEE guide.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it.
The question is not power service suppressors - they are a good idea.
The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work - Both the IEEE
and NIST guides say they do. Read the sources.

Both guides demonstrate how plug-in protectors fail; can even damage
an adjacent TV with 8000 volts: Page 42 Figure 8. Bud calls that
effective protection?

Where are manufacturer numeric specifications that cite each type of
surge and protection from that surge? Plug-in protectors don't make
that claim. If they did, then Bud would have posted those numbers.
Those numbers do not exist because even plug-in protector
manufacturers do not claim protection from a type of surge that
typically does damage.

And then we have page 42 Figure 8: why those manufacturers don't
even claim such protection. Bud calls a protector that earths a surge
8000 volts through a TV - effective?

Both the NIST and IEEE guides state why a protector is only as good
as its earth ground. Plug-in protectors have all but no earth
ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. So Bud claims
they work by "clamping to nothing". Funny. His both citations
instead say protectors work by earthing. A protector with all but no
earthing wire is effective? Yes, according to Bud. Bud says they
"clamp to nothing".

Plug-in protectors can be effective at clamping destructively
through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8

Reality: A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

 

[Bud--]

Repetition of the same drivel.

And still no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT effective.
*Where are the links w_?*

But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors work.

And still no answers:
- 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 Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”
*Where are the answers w_?*

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
No sources that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

Repetition of the same drivel.
...
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work

Yep. They work just fine putting 8000 volts destructively through
that adjacent TV. Bud's own citation - Page 42 Figure 8. Bud also
forgets to mention: plug-in power strip manufacturers do not even
claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. Why does Bud
forget to mention that? It does not even claim to provide that
protection? His own citations say why.

Bud's citations say a protector needs earth ground. Even IEEE
Standards (Red Book, Green Book, Emerald Book) demand same thing.
Diverting to earth is repeatedly mentioned. Bud denies it. Bud
claims "clamping to nothing" works just fine. So the adjacent power
strip protector had to clamp to earth 8000 volts destructively through
a TV - Page 42 Figure 8. How curious. Martzloff says the same thing
in his 1996 IEEE paper. Why does Bud also ignore Martzloff's very
first conclusion in that paper? Why does Bud ingore Page 42 Figure
8. Why does Bud pretend that current technology protectors still may
create those 'scary pictures' ... when plug-in proectors are grossly
undersized.

Bud promotes for plug-in protector manufacturers. His reality is
not concerned with homowner's safety or effective protection. Take a
three fifty power strip. Add some ten cent parts. Sell it for $25 or
$150 dollars. Bud must pervert the facts. Profits being too high to
be honest.

 

[Bud--]

w_tom wrote:

And still nothing new.

In particular no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT
effective.
*Why can't you find any supporting links w_?*

And in particular still no answers:
- 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 Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].
- IEEE guide pg 42 - how does the plug-in suppressor made the condition
[8,000V] at the distant TV any worse than if the plug-in suppressor was
not present [10,000V].
*Simple questions - why no answers no w_?*

The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors work.

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
No sources that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say -
IEEE, Martzloff.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

 

[kony]

w_tom wrote:

And still nothing new.

In particular no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT
effective.

"They're not effective at preventing all surges."

.... now if you want me to come back and link to this post I
just made, if a "link" is that important...

 

[Bud--]

"They're not effective at preventing all surges."

... now if you want me to come back and link to this post I
just made, if a "link" is that important...

w_'s argument is that plug-in suppressors are *never* effective. He has
not provided a link that says that.
I said "NOT effective". I did not say "NOT ALWAYS effective". Your quote
is the latter, sorry, it doesn't qualify.

And as I have said more than once, plug-in suppressors must have
adequate ratings (very high ratings are readily available) and multiport
suppressors are needed when there are external connections. And that
they won't protect against a direct hit (neither will anything else
except lightning rods) or a very near hit.

It is not obvious what you believe because you have never made it clear.

Do you disagree with the IEEE guide? Where? How? Why?

 

[w_tom]

And as I have said more than once, plug-in suppressors must have
adequate ratings (very high ratings are readily available) ...

Which is why Bud denies these scary pictures - a problem with
current technology plug-in protectors that are also typically located
on rugs or adjacent to desktop papers. Bud calls these sufficiently
sized - only because the profits are 'sufficient':
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Of course Bud will say anything to deny this current problem.
Reality: undersizing a plug-in protector gets the naive to recommend
it because protector failure was observed AND increases the profit
margin for each plug-in protector.

Plug-in protectors are properly sized so as to be grossly
profitable. Bud will deny those 'scary pictures' with spin. Being
undersized and mislocated is why those pictures are so much concern to
homeowners. Just another reason why the informed homeowner instead
earths a 'whole house' protector. Costs less money. Properly sized.
No 'scary pictures'.

 

[Bud--]

w_tom wrote:


The same lie and other drivel. w__ believes plug-in suppressors never work.

But still no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT effective.
*Maybe there are none w_.*

And no 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 Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].
- IEEE guide pg 42 - how does the plug-in suppressor made the condition
[8,000V] at the distant TV any worse than if the plug-in suppressor was
not present [10,000V].
*Why no answers no w_?*

The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors work.

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
No sources that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say -
hanford.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[ProfGene]

Hi guys,

Can anyone reccomend a good product (preferably a power bar or simmilar) to
protect computer equipment against a lightning strike ? I'm looking for
something with a connected equipment warranty.. (ie. if my PC goes up in
smoke while connected to their product, they pay for the replacement)

While I'm at it.. is there any way you can insure just your PC and
associated equipment ? Insurance on the house itself (even just contents)
isn't possible right now, but I'd like to have some safeguard.. also, can
you insure against data loss ? (besides making a backup)

Chris

When there is a bad thunderstorm I always disconnect the Phone line DSL
or when I had it the regular phone line because I had lightning take out
a modem when I used dial up and a friend of mine had lightning take out
his whole computer so I wouldn't fool with devices but to be safe I
disconnect.