Lightning Strike and surge

[w_tom]

Poor w_ can’t understand how plug-in suppressors work. It is
explained in the IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) if poor  w_ could
only read. Plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the
voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The
guide says they do not work primarily by earthing.

Bud is correct. The IEEE guide says plug-in protectors do not work
by earthing. They cannot being too far from earth ground. Then the
guide shows what happens when that surge energy is not earthed. Page
42 (of 61) Figure 8. A surge must increase voltage as necessary to
find earth ground. And that is exactly what it does. It clamps
that surge 8000 volts destructively to earth via an adjacent
appliance.

Bud routinely insults because Bud is a sales promoter without
engineering training and who never built this stuff. Insult work
because weak minds see the insults and not the facts. Every
responsible source including Bud's citation say a protector must earth
the typically destructive surge into earth. If permitted inside the
building, that surge will find earth ground often destructively. What
did the plug-in protector do on Figure 8. It gave the surge even more
paths to find earth - 8000 volts destructively via TV2.

What was more than 8000 volts doing inside the building. An ill
advised homeowner did not properly earth one 'whole house' protector.
Instead he went for the easiest solution that does not even claim to
protect from typically destructive surges. Does not claim to protect
from typically destructive surges? Bud cannot post what does not
exist. So Bud uses insult to avoid the question. Where is that spec
that claims protection from each type of surge. Bud's complete
protection solution does not make that claim. Even the manufacturer
does not claim to provide that protection.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Every
responsible source states that. In fact Bud's other citation says it
bluntly:

A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge
protector will work by diverting the surges to ground. The
best surge protector in the world can be useless if
grounding is not done properly.

Another responsible source repeats the same well understood fact.
From
QST Magazine in an Oct 2002 article on surge protection:

The purpose of the ground connection is to take the
energy arriving on the antenna feed line cables and
control lines (and to a lesser extent on the power and
telephone lines) and give it a path back to the earth,
our energy sink. The impedance of the ground
connection should be low so the energy prefers this
path and is dispersed harmlessly. To achieve a low
impedance the ground connection needs to be short
(distance), straight, and wide.

Bud is a sales promoter. He will repeatedly post insults to protect
his obscene profits. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

 

[w_tom]

Some digital circuits do use a completely different ground plane for
digital current but it is also common for the two grounds to be tied
together at one point.  The reason for this is to eliminate the
possibility of different potentials existing between the planes.

Even if there were totally different planes (the memory chip pinout above
suggests there are not) the chip would still have to be powered (non-digital
DC) and the pinout clearly shows that power on several pins.  The power
suppy current has to have a ground (I hope you are not suggesting that the
power supply current enters the chip and never leaves) and that would be a
path for your current surge.

If two grounds are electrically same, then why are they
interconnected at one point. Because, electrically, the two ground
are completely different. The reason for a single point connection is
to make sure both grounds are different. Ground for typically
destructive surges is earth ground. Grounding to the memory SIMM does
not provide a sufficient connection to earth.

Meanwhile, electricity is always different on both ends of a wire.
How different? That means the answer requires numbers. But numbers
make it very obvious why surges (ie lightning) must be earthed short
(ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth ground. You would connect a
lightning rod to a memory Simm and call that sufficient grounding?
Just learn about wire impedance to learn whyt that is not earth
ground.

Well, before Comcast educated cable installers, one installer simply
grounded his cable installation in a flower box on the porch. He
connected to earthing material. That also was earth ground - just
like the SIMM memory ground.

The surge entering a memory SIMM card is equal on all pins - Vcc,
Vss, and signal. Don't reply about the trivial voltage difference
between those pins. The surge is so large as to make any difference
between Vss, Vcc, or signal wires near zero.

The surge is not earthed by a digital ground. How many reason make
that obvious? Those bypass capacitors all over a motherboard put the
same surge on Vcc and Vss. BTW, why do they put capacitors all over
the motherboard? Because one big capacitor at the edge would not put
any capacitance at the semiconductor. Is that big ground plane
connected same everywhere? Of course not. Just like a wire,
electricity is different at difference locations across the
motherboard. So capacitors must be scatttered all over the
motherboard. Same fact also says why all those grounds are different
- not earth ground.

The surge has only one incoming path on memory card - the Vcc, Vss
and signal wires that all carry the same surge currents into memory.
Where is the outgoing path to earth? It does not exist. So memory is
no harmed by the same surge - incoming from adjacent surge protector
and outgoing to earth ground via maybe modem, NIC, or whatever. What
gets surge damaged? Anything that completes an outgoing path to
earth.

 

[John Doe]

The OP asked why his computer is starting slow.

He did not ask for your opinion on how MOV regulation works.

Read your own post on thread purity. and go start a separate thread.

--g

You should seek psychotherapy, geoff.

 

[geoff]

You should seek psychotherapy, geoff.

You certainly seem to know a lot about it.

One more message off topic. You are not doing a very good job of living up
to the principles you promote.

--g

 

[geoff]

Oh, and BTW, you can impart your advice and knowledge to others, waiting to
hear your words on what a good usenet post is . . .

.. . . your words are so smart and high powered that:

ka-plunk! <sound of another troll in the kill file>

bye

--g

 

[Charlie]

If two grounds are electrically same, then why are they
interconnected at one point.

I don't know how to explain to you such a basic concept. Two lines
(grounds) being connected is pretty close to a definition of "electrically
the same". The electrical term is (bonded). This doesn't mean they have the
same length (irrelevant here) or impedance. Every path current can travel
has a different impedance.

Because, electrically, the two ground
are completely different.

You seem to have a non-standard idea of 'completely different'.

The reason for a single point connection is
to make sure both grounds are different.

Actually, the single point makes them electrically the same.

Ground for typically
destructive surges is earth ground.

Grounding to the memory SIMM does
not provide a sufficient connection to earth.

You have presented not evidence of that. In fact just a few lines above you
alluded to a single point connection.

Meanwhile, electricity is always different on both ends of a wire.

To my knowledge electricity is the same. Voltages vary due to wire
impedance/resistance but electricity is still electricity.

How different? That means the answer requires numbers. But numbers
make it very obvious why surges (ie lightning) must be earthed short
(ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth ground.

Irrelevant when you are talking about different parts of a computer being
less susceptable to a surge. The difference in wire length between a memory
chip and say a chip on a modem card is negligible and can be ignored.

You would connect a
lightning rod to a memory Simm and call that sufficient grounding?

I never suggested or implied any such thing. I wonder where that came from.

Just learn about wire impedance to learn whyt that is not earth
ground.

You seem to think that earth ground is some kind of magical thing. In fact
the concept of earth ground is full of problems. Earth's
impedance/resistance varies with location and time. Unfortunately, we have
to deal with it with lightning caused surges. Incidentally, lightning is
not the only thing that causes surges in an electrical system.

Well, before Comcast educated cable installers, one installer simply
grounded his cable installation in a flower box on the porch.

You allowed him to ground the istallation to a flower box?

He
connected to earthing material. That also was earth ground - just
like the SIMM memory ground.

Huh? I suppose that is meant to be sarcasm.

The surge entering a memory SIMM card is equal on all pins - Vcc,
Vss, and signal. Don't reply about the trivial voltage difference
between those pins.

The surge is so large as to make any difference
between Vss, Vcc, or signal wires near zero.

When you are speaking of a surge are you confusing voltage and current? If
current doesn't flow there is no surge, only a possible change in potential
(voltage). Whether or not that potential is high enough to cause a
destructive current through the memory chip is a question that, without more
information, I can't answer and you seem to negate on faith.

The surge is not earthed by a digital ground. How many reason make
that obvious? Those bypass capacitors all over a motherboard put the
same surge on Vcc and Vss.

Well finally you are making an attempt to answer my original question.
Unfortunately, this line of reasoning makes little sense, since it could be
applied to all electronic components that have bypass capacitors. In fact
if the 'bypass capacitor' idea truly worked to protect from surges it would
be a wonderful thing. It would be used on all electrical products as a
protection from surges.

BTW, why do they put capacitors all over
the motherboard?

To keep noise generated by the digital circuit from getting on the power
lines.

Because one big capacitor at the edge would not put
any capacitance at the semiconductor.

Uh, yeah

Is that big ground plane
connected same everywhere? Of course not. Just like a wire,
electricity is different at difference locations across the
motherboard. So capacitors must be scatttered all over the
motherboard. Same fact also says why all those grounds are different
- not earth ground.

I'm beginning to think that you don't understand that electricity (the flow
of electrons) follows all paths not just the one of least resistance. I
hope I'm wrong about you.

The surge has only one incoming path on memory card - the Vcc, Vss
and signal wires that all carry the same surge currents into memory.
Where is the outgoing path to earth? It does not exist. So memory is
no harmed by the same surge - incoming from adjacent surge protector
and outgoing to earth ground via maybe modem, NIC, or whatever. What
gets surge damaged? Anything that completes an outgoing path to
earth.

There are certainly parts of any circuit in a computer that are more
susceptible to surge damage than others, especially if you limit your
thinking to improperly protected circuits (like a modem that offers a direct
path to ground and/or an unprotected surge input). I have never argued that
and frankly don't appreciate your attempt to change the discussion to
something else. My point has been and still is that memory can be damaged
by a surge.

Charlie

 

[John Doe]

Oh, and BTW, you can impart your advice and knowledge to others,
waiting to hear your words on what a good usenet post is . . .

. . . your words are so smart and high powered that:

ka-plunk! <sound of another troll in the kill file>

Okay geoff, let's see how long you can keep track of your imaginary
kill file friend.

 

[John Doe]

"w_tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message

I have decided to discontinue any further discussion with you on this
subject.

Do an author history on w_tom. Reading replies to w_tom from
intelligent/educated authors is enlightening, especially when they
don't yet know who they are arguing with.

 

[Charlie]

Correct is that surges are current. That voltage only increases if
the current is obstructed, absorbed, or blocked. We routinely earth
surges without damage all over the world and for 100 years because the
concepts are that well understood and proven. Protectors without
earth ground violate these well proven concepts - are installed only
for a type of surge that is typically not destructive.

How lightning rods work is well understood.

Go back to your library. You are dead wrong on this.

However, like plug-in
protectors, myths also promote ESE devices. Charlie is posting myths
from the ESE industry

I don't appreciate you stating falsehoods about me. I don't even know what
ESE devices are and have never heard of an ESE industry. The fact that you
would stoop to such lies without knowing anything about me makes everything
else you say suspect. If you so easily lie about me then you just as easily
lie about everything else.

that have been roundly discredited in NFPA
reviews and IEEE papers. No lightning rod discharges the air to make
lightning less likely. Will that ESE type lightning rod (some with
radioactive materials) somehow stop charges three miles up from
building a path to earth? That is what ESE proponents claim.

I have read IEEE papers pertaining to lightning rods, etc. and I plainly
gave both sides of the argument in my post. There are two sides. After
weighing the information I have read, I concluded that there wasn't enough
evidence to determine which was correct, but I personally believe that to
condemn the theory of bleeding the discharge slowly you must deal with the
easily repeatable observations such as the number of times lightning strikes
a building and/or lightning rod before and after the rods installation and
of course the current flow through the lightning rod when there isn't any
lightning. I noted in my post that I was in the minority on this position.
You may wish to blindly assume that anything a person writes a paper on is
correct but that kind of thinking is not mine.

Lightning rods are diverting devices. Lightning rod is only as
effective as its earth ground. Lightning rod - like a 'wjhole house'
protector - are only as effective as its earth ground. There is no
confusion about how lighting rods work. There still are many deceived
by ESE myths. Myths promoted using the same half truths that promote
plug-in protectors.

Protection is about connecting (diverting, clamping, shunting) the
energy to where that energy gets dissipated harmlessly - earth
ground. That is what properly earthed protectors do. That is what
spark gaps do on every broadcast tower. That is what lightning rods
do.

Where is the IEEE paper that promotes ESE (discharge the air)
protection? Does not exist. That was the point make by the NFPA.
NFPA complaint was very specific about that. ESE promoters have done
no research - done nothing to prove - that discharging the air
protects from lightning. In fact, these ESE promoters spend massive
sums suing the NFPA in a legal threat to force the NFPA to accept ESE
protectors. NFPA still refused because no responsible source says
lightning rods discharge the air. That 'discharging' is a popular
myth promoted to those who *know* without first learning the science.

Am I blunt about this?

I can think of may terms that fit better than blunt.

Yes, Charlie. You posted junk science.

You have stooped to accusing me of having some kind of agenda. You have
repeatedly confused the discussion with irrelevant information much of which
doesn't even make sense. You seem to have been absent when your class was
taught the concept of resistors in parallel. You don't seem to understand
the meaning of many electrical terms. You present only one side of a still
unsettled argument. You believe that when someone writes an IEEE paper or
the like it is automatically fact and then you have the audacity to accuse
me of junk science.

Having such a closed mind is not what makes a scientist.

I don't pretend to be a scientist myself or an expert in electronics
(although I do have a degree in electronics) but I am not close minded. I
frankly enjoy learning from people who know more than me. I learn the most
when I'm proven wrong. I've learned nothing from you about electricity.

You
did not first learn the technology. Lightning rods obviously do not
work by discharging the air. It would have to discharge miles of
air. It cannot and does not do that. You should have known how often
ESE technology is rejected by responsible sources. You are invited to
learn how Hearly Bros tried to force the world to accept ESE devices -
using the same logic you have posted.

I have decided to discontinue any further discussion with you on this
subject.

Charlie

 

[w_tom]

To my knowledge electricity is the same. Voltages vary due to wire
impedance/resistance but electricity is still electricity.

Irrelevant when you are talking about different parts of a computer being
less susceptable to a surge. The difference in wire length between a memory
chip and say a chip on a modem card is negligible and can be ignored.
...
You seem to think that earth ground is some kind of magical thing. In fact
the concept of earth ground is full of problems. Earth's
impedance/resistance varies with location and time. Unfortunately, we have
to deal with it with lightning caused surges. Incidentally, lightning is
not the only thing that causes surges in an electrical system.
...
You allowed him to ground the istallation to a flower box?

Obviously I was not involved. But so many people have so little
grasp of grounding that one 'earthed' that TV cable to a flower box.
He truly believed that was earthing. Just another example of so many
who don't understand what and why earthing is essential to surge
protection.

Nothing magic about earthing - regardless of how you emotionally
perceive it. Posted were basic concepts. Posted basic concepts are
routinely denied by many who only believe the first thing told by the
surge protector retail salesman. It is that simple. If a surge does
not have a path to dissipate energy in earth, then the surge will find
paths inside a building.

Lightning is not the only type of surge. Surge protection is
installed so that a typically destructive type of surge does not cause
appliance damage. When installed, that protection system makes other
surges irrelevant - including surges that typically cause no damage.

Well, the naive will claim a refrigerator or vacuum cleaner creates
surges. Yes - surges so trivial as to be made irrelevant by
protection inside every appliance. Earth a type of surge that will
overwhelm internal appliance damage. A surge that is maybe once every
seven years, may overwhelm that appliance protection, and is made
irrelevant by a 'whole house' protector and proper earthing.
Meanwhile, the same 'whole house' protector further makes a dishwasher
'surge' more irrelevant.

Your discussion of impedance variations and wire length to a SIMM is
obviously irrelevant; not stated in my posts. Why does the typically
destructive surge not harm memory? Because it has one incoming path -
any or all pins - and no outgoing path.

Why do certain parts of computers get damaged by lightning? How
many generations have you learned how computers got damaged by fixing
those computers (and never having the computer fail again)? We did
this. We even traced a surge earthed destructively through a network
of powered off computers. Two plug-in protectors presented lightning
surge with that path incoming into two computers and outgoing through
a third. Why? Why was that surge not earthed before even entering
the building? What did those two plug-in protectors do? Give the
surge more (destructive) paths through powered off computers.

One 'whole house' protector would have prevented three damaged
computers.

Whereas earthing can become more complex in higher reliability
buildings, still, the basic concept required in every home remains
this simple. Surges must be earthed by a low impedance (short, no
sharp bends, not inside metallic conduit, etc) connection to single
point earth ground. That alone provides massive protection. And even
that simple solution is not found in most homes.

How can this be if all electricity is same? Just another fact.
Earthing for surges means the safety ground must both meet and exceed
National Electrical Code requirements. Why? A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.

 

[w_tom]

I don't appreciate you stating falsehoods about me. I don't even know what
ESE devices are and have never heard of an ESE industry. The fact that you
would stoop to such lies without knowing anything about me makes everything
else you say suspect. If you so easily lie about me then you just as easily
lie about everything else.

That ESE devices protect by discharging the air has no science fact
no matter how that might hurt your emotions. Whereas discharging air
adjacent to the terminal has merit, there is no proof - none - that
discharging air feet or kilometers from the terminal creates
protection. None. Why do you confuse the science inches from a
terminal rod with protection that must terminate a 3 miles discharge?

If you had this proof that ESE devices work, then you would have
posted those citations rather than crying. Your long post still
offers nothing but your assumptions. Where are those IEEE papers that
claim ESE devices work? The NFPA (people who write the National
Electrical Code) said they cannot list ESE devices because no
fundamental research exists to support the claim.

Meanwhile, what happened when ESE devices were tested in
experimental situations? The stories are famous including the one ESE
device literally blown off an FAA building by lightning only days
after it was installed.

Protection from lighting surges has always been about connecting
that electricity to earth ground - where the energy is harmlessly
dissipated. That is how lightning rods work. That is why 'whole
house' protectors are so effective - and for so little money. That is
why every facility that requires protection does not use ESE devices
AND even installs better earthing.

How did Orange County FL emergency response system fix their
lightning problems? As industry professionals routinely do - they
upgraded the earthing system. No plug-in protectors or other 'magic'
sold by retails salesmen. To eliminate lightning surge damage to 911
equipment, earth ground was upgraded:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Surge protection is always about diverting the electricity so that
it does not enter the facility.

 

[bud--]

Bud routinely insults

..
Poor sensitive w_ is insulted by reality.
..

Bud is a sales promoter without
engineering training

..
With no valid technical arguments poor w_ has to try to discredit
opponents. To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts
cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only
association with surge protectors is I have some.
And I am an electrical engineer.
..

What
did the plug-in protector do on Figure 8. It gave the surge even more
paths to find earth - 8000 volts destructively via TV2.

..
The lie repeated.

For the problem illustrated the IEEE says "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
..

Bud is a sales promoter.

..
w_ is so pathetic.
..

A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

..
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. 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. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). (Read the guide
starting pdf page 40).

Never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do
NOT work.

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 one example “the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?

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

 

[bud--]

A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.

..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

But 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"?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?

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

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

It was you who stated (and snipped when I commented on it)

That's part of w_tom's modus operandi. If you continue to contradict
him, he will start deliberately misquoting you, then lying outright, to
defend his religious belief and profitable pastime selling whole-house
earthing solutions.

 

[w_tom]

That's part of w_tom's modus operandi. If you continue to contradict
him, he will start deliberately misquoting you, then lying outright, to
defend his religious belief and profitable pastime selling whole-house
earthing solutions.

One who does not even know the difference between characteristic
impedance and wire impedance - basic electrical concepts - will say
what?

Why does a surge incoming on motherboard not damage memory? The
incoming path exists - SIMM contacts. Where is the outgoing path to
earth ground? Does not exist. So the typically destructive surge
(electricity that flows in paths to earth ground) does not damage
memory SIMMs. The SIMM does not have both an incoming path and an
outgoing path to earth. Therefore no destructive electrical current
through the SIMM.

How do we protect any computer? A surge that has a better current
path to earth need not pass through (and overwhelm protection in) any
computer. One who understands the difference between characteristic
impedance and wire impedance could then learn why this protection has
been routinely used for 100 years. One who understands these basic
electrical concepts can then appreciate why telcos (with overhead
wires everywhere in town connected to their computer) can suffer 100
surges from every thunderstorm and no computer damage. Telcos also
use proper earthing and a 'whole house' protector - same technique
used even 100 years ago.

What defines the effectiveness of any protector? Earth ground -
where that surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly. To be damaged,
electronics must be in a path from cloud to earth. SIMMs not in that
path will not be damaged. Modems with an incoming path from AC
electric and an outgoing path to earth ground via phone line are often
damaged. To be damaged, electronics must have both an incoming and
outgoing current path. A basic electrical concept taught in primary
school science - and another fact apparently ignored by Mike
Tomlinson.

If Charlie understood the concept (the surge circuit), then he knew
a big ground plane on a motherboard is not earth ground. To a surge,
all those SIMM connectors are electrically same (as made obvious
especially by 'noise' capacitors). SIMM connectors can be the
incoming surge path. But without an outgoing path to earth ground
(not motherboard ground), then no surge current flows through to
destroy SIMMs.

 

[bud--]

What defines the effectiveness of any protector? Earth ground

..
The required religious belief in earthing.

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.

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 one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?

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

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

[More lies, equivocation, half-truths and personal attacks snipped]

Thank you for proving my point. Preserved for posterity by Google for
future reference.

 

[w_tom]

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.

w_tom never said plug-in protectors "do NOT work". Bud - a
professional sales promoter - will say anything to avoid posting those
manufacturer specs. He cannot post what does not exist. So he does
what any professional propagandist will do. Bud lies.

Plug-in protectors protect from a kind of surge that is typically
not destructive. w_tom said so repeatedly. IEEE and NIST citations
say why. But Bud must deny it. Profits are at risk.

An honest Bud would admit why he never posts manufacturer specs.
Plug-in protectors do not claim to protect from the typically
destructive surge. But when a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts
sells for $25 or $150, then Bud must obfuscate the issue. Bud never
posts manufacturer specs because no plug-in manufacturer claims to
protect from typically destructive surges.

Effective protection has always been about earthing before a surge
enters the building. Effective protectors protects from all types of
surges. The effective solution - one properly earthed 'whole house'
protector - also costs tens or 100 times less money.

The word is effective. Plug-in protector works. Just not for
surges that typically cause damage. And it is obscenely overpriced.
One effective 'whole house' protector protects from all types of
surges. Plug-in manufacturers do not make that claim. So Bud never
posts manufacturer numeric specs. Manufacturer cannot claim what it
does not do.

When a product does something, then its manufacturer says so in
specs. How curious. Not one plug-in protector - Bud's complete
solution - even claims to provide that protection. Bud refuses to
provide those spec numbers. No plug-in manufacturer claims to provide
Bud's mythical protection.

What does Sun Microsystems, the IEEE, NIST, US Air Force, QST (the
ARRL), Dr Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times, Schmidt
Consulting, Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a station
engineer from WXIA-TV, engineers who eliminated damage to Orange
County FL 911 facilities, every telephone company, commercial
broadcasters, nuclear hardened radio stations, etc all require for
surge protection? Plug-in protectors do not provide sufficient
protection. All require earthing and protectors that shunt (connect,
divert, clamp) surges into earth. In every case, plug-in protectors
do not provide that protection.

Plug-in protectors work. Just not on surges that typically cause
damage. Did Bud forget to mention that IEEE and NIST agree? Sales
promoters are not well known for their honesty.

 

[bud--]

w_tom never said plug-in protectors "do NOT work".

..
"A protector is only as effective as its earth ground."
..

An honest Bud would admit why he never posts manufacturer specs.

..
An intelligent w_ would admit specs have been posted often and ignored.

But then an intelligent w_ could figure out how plug-in suppressors work
- explained in the IEEE guide.


Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.

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 one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?

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

 

[w_tom]

"A protector is only as effective as its earth ground."
An honest Bud would admit why he never posts manufacturer specs.

Again Bud refuses to cite a single manufacturer spec that says a
plug-in protector protects from all type of surges. Sales promoter
Bud ignores relevant facts - those missing manufacturer specs- to
promote obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors.

Again posted by Bud:

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

.... because only Bud invented that myth - no one else. Bud will post
lies repeatedly to get the last post. An honest Bud would have posted
manufacturer specs for plug-in protectors that list protection from
each type of surge. No manufacturer will make that claim. So Bud
must post insults, lies, and other nonsense to get the last post.

Bud promotes plug-in protectors as a complete protection system. It
protects from a surge that is not destructive. It does not protect
from typically destructive surges and does not claim that
protection. But a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts selling
for $150 - that is what Bud recommends - one required for every
appliance including every smoke detector. Bud will reply because
profits are at risk.

Bud will reply and still never provide those specs. Bud
understands propaganda, half truths, and insults.

Meanwhile, every responsible source notes a protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. How curious. Responsible sources who
know and demonstrate this reality include Sun Microsystems, the IEEE,
NIST, US Air Force, QST (the ARRL), Dr Kenneth Schneider, Electrical
Engineering Times, Schmidt Consulting, Polyphaser's highly regarded
application notes, a station engineer from WXIA-TV, engineers who
eliminated damage to Orange
County FL 911 facilities, every telephone company, commercial
broadcasters, nuclear hardened radio stations, Polyphaser, etc