Surge / Ground / Lightning

On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom put
finger to keyboard and composed:

On May 1, 2:18*pm, ransley wrote:
Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
damages from from surges and lightning offer non such *claim or
warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
times, anything you do helps a bit.

Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
through it.

Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
through the TV?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

w_tom wrote:
On May 2, 4:24 pm, wrote:
I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
protection and can be part of an effective solution.

trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
posted.

"No earth ground means no effective protection."

Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
surge that typically does not do damage.

Gee - thats kinda like "plug-in surge protectors offer absolutely no
benefit."

But UL listed plug-in suppressors are required to have MOVs from H-G,
N-G, H–N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surges.

trader did not bother to read what the IEEE
says when a plug-in protector is too close to appliances and too earth
ground [sic] - Page 42 Figure 8?

It is, of course, w_'s favorite lie, not what the IEEE guide says. The
guide says "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2
is required."


I suggest trader read what was posted rather than invent what he
wanted to hear.

But half the time w_ invents what he wants to hear.

trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted

But w_’s favorite technique is misrepresenting what people post.

trader just does not have sufficient electrical
knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
citations [sic].

w_ just does not have sufficient electrical knowledge to read simple
sources:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors (you don't have to read, just look at the pretty
pictures)?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why do all but one of w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?


Effective protectors do as the NIST state [sic]

What does the NIST state?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."

However, no earth ground
means no effective protection.

w_ said "nobody is posting sound bytes" - but there it is.

Poor w_ can't understand the explanation in the IEEE guide - plug-in
suppressor work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires (signal
and power) to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing. The
guide says earthing occurs elsewhere. (Guide starting pdf page 40.)

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Why can’t you find sources w_? I am beginning to think you are full of crap!

--
bud--

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:
| wrote:
| In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- wrote:
|
| | According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
| | most frequently damaged by lightning is
| | computers with a modem connection
| | TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
| | connections).
| | All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.
|
| And this is new information how?
|
| Irrelevant comment.

Translation: bud doesn't have the answer


| | This suppressor includes, in the unit, ports for cable and phone. That
| | limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems
| | downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct
| | induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.
|
| Of course. And this is new info?
|
| Irrelevant comment.

Translation: bud doesn't have the answer


| | A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to
| | provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive
| | electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.
|
| I would add to that, to protect ALL metallic wiring coming in to the
| building at one place. That way you keep all at the same potential
| and using a single point of earthing.
|
| If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what I already
| said below:
| "A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
| signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
| entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
| suppressor above)."
|
| But of course why would you read what someone else wrote.

Maybe because they write it in a hard to read way, or write it addressed
to someone else, or any of many reasons I can make up.

Why don't you make a web page with a complete compilation of all your
positions and suggestions on surge protection, all in one place, made
easy to read.


| | | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
| | | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
| | | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
| | | equipment, televisions, and computers."
| | |
| | | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
| |
| | Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor. Did you even look?
| |
| | The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.
| |
| | But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power
| | wires.
| |
| | A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
| | signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal
| | entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined
| | suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.
|
| Or a combined entrance suppressor. I don't know if anyone makes one.
|
| If you would have read what I wrote, you would have seen that is what
| the 1st SquareD suppressor is. In fact right above your reply is "(or
| the combined suppressor above)".
|
| If you read what w_ wrote, trader wouldn?t have to explain what w_ said.

I read very little of what w_ writes.


| | There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only
| | suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor
| | and shield in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance
| | ground block.
|
| It can be limited to some degree by the grounding block by having an arc
| crossover inside. If the voltage exceeds the arc breakdown, you then have
| a much lower impedance for center conductor surges to get to ground.
|
| What is the breakdown voltage? What is the immunity level of a TV tuner?
| Gas discharge tubes, among other devices, are used because they clamp at
| a low voltage.

It's a matter of choosing the right device that won't hinder the desired
signal, but still provides the desired level of protection.

This is one reason I'd like to find a pair of devices, one a modulator,
one a demodulator, that can put the entire spectrum of cable TV on a
fiber optic "cable".


| | Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.
| |
| | Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.
|
| If you want to see options beyond what SQD has, then do look at CH.
| I have downloaded the SQD and CH catalogs, so I can look (but I will
| for myself, not for you).
|
| If you would read what has been written you would not make dumb
| comments. My original response was to w_. My point was one of w_'s
| "responsible manufacturers" (CH) makes plug?in suppressors. "I don?t
| really care" what else CH has. You brought it up. I am not, and was not,
| interested.

OK.


| | The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what kinds
| | of things you might use. There are no scientific explanations to help you
| | figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to achieve the
| | level of protection you want. OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability to
| | understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a few
| | simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that does not
| | cover all situations or all levels of protection.
| |
| | I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges
| | and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references
| | provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you
| | seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.
|
| Given your long diatribes, and your fixation on how you respond to others
| in an accusatory manner, a lot of your posts go unread even by me.
|
| Apparently not enough of my posts go unread by you.

A lot just get glossed over.


| I have tried to respond to your posts in other threads on a technical level.
| In fact your post in this thread started out hostile.

I don't even see the threads anymore. I just see poorly written posts.


| | You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and "flubbed
| | the experiment".
|
| I propose that as one explanation as to why these guides come up short on
| the explanations.
|
| Translation - they don't say what you believe. They "missed a lot of
| reality" was in response to one of your beliefs that is not found in any
| of the rather extensive reading I have done. And another of your beliefs
| for which you have no supporting cite.

You are likely to never see any citation that attests to what I believe.


| | You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection
| | Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at
| | technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you
| | would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific
| | explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you
| | probably have not read.
|
| The guide I read that you pointed me to simply did not cover the whole topic.
| It left out lots of things. Maybe what it covered was all technically correct.
| But it was not a useful guide for the purpose of determing what solution is
| needed for all situations.
|
| Wow - what a shortcoming. It isn't a 1000 page book.

Maybe it should have been.


| And look carefully at the name "IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee".
| This is about DEVICES. Proper surge protection involves MORE than just
| devices. If you are in the business of designing a DEVICE, then sure, go
| with their advice. If you need to select a DEVICE to fit into an overall
| plan of surge protection, then sure, use their information about devices.
| But when the issue has a broader scope than just devices, you may need to
| recognize that you won't get all your information from one place.
|
| If you had read what I have written it is obvious I have gotten
| information from many places.

And mixed it up quite well.


| And you are again discounting a guide written by experts, peer reviewed
| by experts, published by the IEEE, and aimed at technical people. You
| apparently think electrical engineers are idiots. Where you disagree
| with the guide you have not cited a source that supports your belief.

I've _met_ electrical engineers that are idiots. I've met people in a
lot of other fields that are idiots.

I don't know if the authors of what you have read are idiots. Maybe they
are just not writing as broadly as you think they are.


| That assumes you actually read the guide. Unlikely, since you said it
| has no "scientific explanations". But what could you learn from mere
| experts.

I read it long ago when you linked it somewhere. I forget which place it
was.


| | But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There
| | apparently is no expert but you.
|
| I'm not claiming to be an expert. But when people talk about things with
| even less knowledge than I have, and especially when what they say contradicts
| actual observations, then I know _they_ cannot be an expert (or else there is
| some misinformation and the situations are not really a match).
|
| Translation - Phil is smarter than the experts.

I'm not claiming to be an expert. Yet you think I am?


| For example, consider the high frequency issue. High frequency energy is
| less common than low frequency energy. Partly this is because the chance
| of a closer lightning strike is less than a more distant one. A strike
| within 100 meters is only 1/8 as like as a strike outside of 100 meters
| but within 300 meters. Some people then feel that they can dismiss high
| frequency energy issues entirely.
|
| Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
| papers on surges and suppression. In one of them he wrote:
| "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too
| often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring
| systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line
| concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than
| the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that
| the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of
| classical transmission line behavior."
| Residential branch circuits aren't 200m.
|
| Your response: "Then he flubbed the experiment." In another case you
| have said Martzloff had a hidden agenda.

I addressed this one elsewhere. You seem to have misunderstood him.
He did not say that wiring systems do not exhibit transmission line
characteristics. Rather, he points out that one does not need to look
at the transmission line characteristics in certain cases. What he
says in what you quoted is correct. The way you have used it is not.


| You claim lightning induced surges have rise times about a thousand
| times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally
| derived.

So you are narrowing this statement to only induced surges?

I didn't see where you quoted anything by IEEE or its experts that specify
actual rise times of any kind of surge, induced or otherwise.


| One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond
| rise time for a lightning induced surge is a "representative pulse",
| with most of the spectrum under 100kHz. You don?t get transmission line
| effects at 100kHz.

I agree that you don't get transmission line effects under 100 kHz for 200m
wires ... of any significance to worry about for surge matters.

OTOH, you have not shown how even if an 8 microsecond rise time is significant
as a representative case, that it can't get shorter than that in severe cases.
or even a higher rise voltage (which hasn't even been specified at all here).


| You still have never provided a cite that supports your opinion.

You haven't, either, in many cases. You've given cites that support something
else in some cases. It's clear you don't _understand_ the science involved.
I'm sure Martzloff does. It's obvious that you don't.


| Summarizing:
| Phil doesn't read much of what you write (or cited sources).
| Phil is smarter than electrical engineers who are experts in the field.

That's YOUR opinion. Now, are you going to offer a cite to support THAT?

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar wrote:
| On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom put
| finger to keyboard and composed:
|
|On May 1, 2:18?pm, ransley wrote:
| Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
| damages from from surges and lightning offer non such ?claim or
| warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
| step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
| times, anything you do helps a bit.
|
| Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
|destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
|through it.
|
| Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
| through the TV?

A surge will take _every_ path. Where that ends up with a voltage difference
somewhere, anywhere, that exceeds the device breakdown voltage, then you will
have current flow across there. And if that breakdown means damage, as it
would for things like a CMOS circuit component, the device would be damaged.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

w_tom wrote:

... trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
sufficient expertise.

w_tom reminds me of Yoda :-)

... no earth ground means no effective protection.

Bull****. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.

Nick

In alt.engineering.electrical wrote:
| w_tom wrote:
|
|... trader again misrepresents what w_tom posted, in
|part, because trader just does not have sufficient electrical
|knowledge and trader never bothered to read those so many professional
|citations. trader again did not read with technical precision and
|sufficient expertise.
|
| w_tom reminds me of Yoda :-)
|
|... no earth ground means no effective protection.
|
| Bull****. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.

The big problem with the whole bud vs. w_ debate is they aren't debating the
same thing. Each is talking about a subset of the whole field, and mostly
are not overlapping in what they talk about.

One can be fairly safe by having all the communications come in over fiber,
and get power by a motor driving a heavy duty fiberglass axle driving a
generator. Even then, there is still the risk of a direct lightning strike.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from |
| Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote in message
...
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote:
| wrote in message
| ...
| In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote:
| |
| | wrote
| |
| |Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
| |last week. I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
| |of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
| |companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
| |it. Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell
plug-in
| |ones too.
| |
| | Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working
overtime
| as a
| | salesman for all of those companies too? Busy guy!
|
| Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing
| about
| entirely different issues. But I can't be entirely sure because their
| rants
| are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the
| first
| screenful is all quoted text. And my googlegroups filter is killing
off
| the
| posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.
|
| Is googlegroups filtering possible using Outlook Express?

Not that I know of. But my reader is configured to filter out
Googlegroups
due to Google's lack of action to deal with the massive spam floods they
let
reach Usenet. Not only is there many times as much spam from Googlegroups
as legitimate posts in the groups I read, but in many, the level of normal
posts has fallen, suggesting that this issue is causing some to abandon
Usenet
because of this.

Thanks for the info.

On 3 May 2008 09:46:09 GMT, put finger to
keyboard and composed:

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar wrote:
| On Thu, 1 May 2008 13:30:31 -0700 (PDT), w_tom put
| finger to keyboard and composed:
|
|On May 1, 2:18?pm, ransley wrote:
| Whaaat, you say my Triplights that offer a life time warranty to
| damages from from surges and lightning offer non such ?claim or
| warranty, thats pure barf. Triplight surge protectors are only one
| step a homeowner needs to hopefully protect you. Ive been hit several
| times, anything you do helps a bit.
|
| Actually some things installed will decrease protection - ie the TV
|destroyed because the plug-in protector earthed an 8000 volt surge
|through it.
|
| Can you elaborate on this by showing us the path taken by the strike
| through the TV?

A surge will take _every_ path. Where that ends up with a voltage difference
somewhere, anywhere, that exceeds the device breakdown voltage, then you will
have current flow across there. And if that breakdown means damage, as it
would for things like a CMOS circuit component, the device would be damaged.

True but irrelevant to my question. I wanted specific examples in
support of the claim that "some things installed will decrease
protection".

A strike on the mains would be clamped to the earth pin by MOVs. It
may still be that the antenna provides a second path to earth which
would mean that the TV could be damaged that way. However, the absence
of an earth pin would result in an even higher differential voltage
between mains and antenna which would mean an even greater likelihood
of damage. OTOH, if the strike arrived via the antenna, then the
presence or absence of the earth pin should make very little
difference AFAICS.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

w_tom wrote:

On May 2, 4:24 pm, wrote:
I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
protection and can be part of an effective solution.

trader again read what he wanted to hear rather than read what was
posted. Plug-in protectors do offer protection - from a type of
surge that typically does not do damage. How would you know? Well,
w_tom said it repeatedly - and trader ignored it. trader routinely
ignored what he did not understand or did not want to understand.

Typically destructive surges seek earth ground.


Bull****. Like ALL charges, it simply seeks a complete circuit to
flow. You have absolutely no grasp of the basic concepts, yet you
continue to spout your ignorance and lies.

Take a look in the Google archives and see if you can find even one
post agreeing with tom, and his crackpot theories. He doesn't
understand the concept that a piece of wire is more than a lump of
metal, that it has inductance, resistance, and capacitance between it
and other conductors. The only thing tom is qualified to write about is
aluminum foil hats.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html


Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

On May 3, 6:04 am, wrote:
Bull****. A high series impedance can also provide effective protection.

Yes, high impedance can supplement protection when high impedance is
part of a system that also includes the only essential component in
any surge protection system: a low impedance (short, no sharp bends,
no splices, etc) connection to single point earth ground. High
impedance does not provide protection; can only supplement effective
protection. Effective protection is a low impedance connection to
single point earth ground.

Why is the 'whole house' protector so effective? Page 42 Figure 8
demonstrates what happens when a protector is too far from earth
ground and too close to the appliance.. Effective protector includes
separation (higher impedance) from the protected appliance AND a short
(low impedance) connection to earth ground. That low impedance
connection is essential. High impedance can only supplement the
protection and is not effective when that low impedance earth
connection does not exist.

Will a high impedance stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
not? Of course not. Obviously not. And yet some just know
otherwise. Will that silly little one inch part inside a plug-in
protector stop what three miles of sky could not? Of course not.

Without that short (low impedance) and essential connection to
earth, only then can a high impedance connection do something useful.