Surge / Ground / Lightning

----------------------------
"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Michael A. Terrell
wrote:

| 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.

Not true.

When you close a switch between a power source and a pair of wires that
go
out yonder, the electrical energy does not "know" whether the circuit is
complete or not. If it refused to flow, it would not be able to find
out.
It will flow, whether the circuit is complete or not. What happens after
that depends on what is at the other end, which could be an open
condition,
a short circuit, or some kind of resistive or reactive load.

You've claimed to have worked in broadcasting in an engineering role. So
you should understand what happens at the end of an open transmission
line.
The electricity flows to get to the open end. Yet it is not a "complete
circuit".

Hmmm,
You seem to be confused between current flow(energy) and voltage(poential)
Nothing flows in an open circuit. If not we have to rewrite Ohm's law.
Show your credential to make a stamement like that.
Shameful.
------------------------
Actually, you are showing some confusion. Phil is right in that he is
bringing out a point that normal lumped RLC circuit theory doesn't handle
because it essentially treats the speed of propagation of electrical signals
as if it were infinite- which isn't true.

1)Current (not current flow which is meaningless) is NOT energy.
Current*voltage*time IS energy-
..
2)Also, on energizing a line whether it is open or closed, there is a
current flow as the applied voltage "sees" the characteristic impedance of
the line (wire or whatever) so a current will flow-even on an open circuit-
until there is a modifying reflection from the termination. For a house the
distances are such that this may be of the order of 0.1-0.2 microsecond.
After all such reflections at terminations have ceased or are negligable,
conventional circuit theory is applicable.
In these situations, you are dealing with wave propagation rather than
conventional circuit theory.
This is the regime that is of interest in considering "surge protectors"

As to the advantage of "whole house" vs local surge protection, "whole house
protection depends on distances to all "protected" items being small. Local
protection doesn't but is simply that- local. The effectiveness of either
depends considerably on grounding and other factors.

The spate of name calling doesn't do anything of use to anybody.
--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

On May 4, 9:57*pm, bud-- wrote:
Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)

Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.

Every Bud citations contradicts Bud's claims. So Bud must do what
those without knowledge do - post insults.

Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.
Good. Bud can post those manufacture spec numbers that list each type
of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. 400 requests and Bud
still cannot provide any specs? So Bud must post insults.

How to identify the liar - who does exactly what Rush Limbaugh
does? He posts no facts (no manufacturer spec numbers) and his posts
are only insults. Bud posts only insults. That says Bud lies (and
that he has not technical facts). But then profits are at risk. That
justifies anything.

wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Leonard Caillouet wrote:
| wrote in message
| ...
| In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Franc Zabkar wrote:
|
|
| The MOVs will act like conductors when they are clamping. The surge will
| take both paths ... the path through the MOVs, and the path going past the
| MOVs. In general, about 50% will go each way. That can vary at higher
| frequencies.
|
| Why would you assume that 50% will go each way when you don't know the
| impedance of each direction? When conducting, or at failure, the MOV has a
| very low impedance.

There is a distinction between "go each way" and "what comes back" due to
the impedance. It will be about 50% that goes each way _because_ the power
itself does not (yet) know the impedance (at a distance), until it gets
there.

Another installment of Phil's Phantasy Physics using transmission line
theory.

Two sources directly contradict Phil.

Phil has provided no sources to support phantasy physics.

--
bud--

On May 3, 4:16 am, bud-- wrote:
...
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.
...
Francois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and has many published
papers on surges and suppression.

Both of Bud's citations - guides for laymen - describe how a plug-in
protector can work AND how such devices can even create appliance
damage. Both state what an effective protector needs - short
connection to earth ground. Both state why a protector without
earthing can even contribute to appliance damage.

Even Martzloff is quite blunt about this. Bud quotes from Martzloff
selectively. Meanwhile this conclusion is so fundamental that
Martzloff makes it the first point in his IEEE paper:
Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

A plug-in (point of connection) protector can contribute to
appliance damage. Every Bud citation says that. Even Martzloff says
that. Why do professionals routinely install 'whole house' type
protectors instead of plug-in protectors? "Objectionable difference
in … voltages ... [when] protective devices are ... at the point of
connection". Industry professionals note this problem with plug-in
protectors. Also are those 'scary pictures of plug-in protectors
located where fire hazards are greater. Bud conveniently ignores all
that. Profits are at risk.

On May 4, 9:14 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Bull****. Transmitters get knocked off the air, and the anteanna
grounding systems are damaged from repeated strikes. Onece again, you
are blowing smoke.

People who are more than TV repairmen learn from their mistakes and
correct reasons for that failure. TV repairmen only fix defects -
never bother to learn how those failures can be avoided. Let's have
some fun. Let's reply using the same mockery and insult that Michael
uses. Except this post will be accurate about Michaels intelligence.

Others who bother to learn discover what happens when a radio
station repeatedly gets knocked off the air. Eventually that station
engineer may hire someone who knows more than a TV repairman. What
was the solution to so much radio station damage? They fixed mistakes
made by a naive station engineer. They installed and upgreaded
earthing. No more lightning damage.

Michael will deny reality because Michael knows without first
learning facts. Others can learn what Michael Terrell denies.
Lightning need not cause damage when one thinks, instead, like an
engineer. Michael Terrell who learned to think like and engineer -
not like the technician - would know this. Radio station repeatedly
damaged. Then they finally admited that failure is not acceptable:
http://www.copper.org/applications/e.../nebraska.html

Based on a belief that "too much" grounding was attracting
lightning strikes, grounding connections on the tower's six
sets of guy wires had been disconnected sometime in the
past (Figure 4). This action may, in fact, have helped direct
lightning discharge current down the antenna tower itself,
bringing the strike closer to the studio/transmitter building.

Why did the station engineer make damage easier? He could not
bother to learn about stuff even published in QST magazine - the ham
radio operator's magazine.

Why does Michael Terrell deny this? He is a technician - a TV
repairman. His posts attack the messenger rather than address
technology. Michael Terrell is correct. Some stations are knocked
off the air by lightning. Those with informed station engineers
correct the defect - learn from their mistakes and eliminate future
failures. Michael Terrell's attitude declares failure as acceptable.
But then Michael Terrell could not think like an engineer which is why
he also could never be promoted above enlistedman.

On May 4, 9:24*am, "Tantalust" wrote:
"w_tom" wrote in message
snip
* We earth a 'whole house' protector AND connect all protectors
short
(ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground so that
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. *Simple
stuff
that so confused trader. *trader *assumed* MOVs rather than read
what
was posted. * trader again demonstrates insufficient technical
kowledge justifies his mockery and insult. * Mythical MOV inside
appliances demonstrate that trader only reads what he wants to
see;
not what is posted.

*MOVs inside appliances is another trader myth. *Had trader read
what
was posted or learned technology, then trader would not invent
fictional MOVs inside appliances.

Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down
to people
as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?

You read sometimes like one of those old children's "Golden Books".

Hey, I LIKED reading Golden Books to my kids. They didn't like W-TOMs
posts at all.

GG

In article d4a62a8a-464b-461f-a297-b6bc581749c3
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...
On May 4, 9:57*pm, bud-- wrote:
Bud has provided 2 sources that directly contradict Phil. (Of course
they are not as smart as Phil.)

Phil has provided no sources to support Phil's Phantasy Physics.

Every Bud citations contradicts Bud's claims.

Don't be so stupid.

So Bud must do what
those without knowledge do - post insults.

Anything truthful posted about you would be an insult to a normal
person.

Bud claims his plug-in protectors provide complete protection.

Bull****. Either you're a goddamned liar or are denser than a
concrete slab. He's repeatedly said there is *no* protection from a
direct strike (except to be elsewhere).

Good. Bud can post those manufacture spec numbers that list each type
of surge and protection from that surge. Oh. 400 requests and Bud
still cannot provide any specs? So Bud must post insults.

Ok, that answers it. You *are* a liar.

How to identify the liar - who does exactly what Rush Limbaugh
does? He posts no facts (no manufacturer spec numbers) and his posts
are only insults. Bud posts only insults. That says Bud lies (and
that he has not technical facts). But then profits are at risk. That
justifies anything.

There goes W, doing what he claims others do; not only stupid, but a
liar and hypocrite, to boot.

--
Keith

On May 4, 12:03 pm, (Tiffany S.) wrote:
That is NOT what you had been saying all along. You kept saying that
plug-in protectors offer NO protection because they lack an earth
ground.

Also, isn't it assumed that *all* surge suppressors are intended to
protect *only* from the type of surge that would otherwise do damage by
finding its path destructively through "appliances"?

Return and read what was posted. Plug-in protectors offer
ineffective protection. Did you also see these sentences? "No earth
ground means no effective protection". "A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground". Notice the word 'effective'.

Remember an important question posted by Phil. How much is that
protection worth? Some earth ground rods connected close to all
protectors (the service entrance) provides significant protection.
Your telco massively expands switching center earthing to mildly
increase that protection. Rather than use plug-in protectors,
instead, they massively expand earth ground. That little more
improvement is the better solution.

Surge protection is not just for surges that seek earth ground.
Visit a benchmark in this business - www.polyphaser.com. For
example, what happens if a surge enters the building; is induced by a
surge carrying wire onto other wires. Integrate other solutions
inside a building so that even network data packets need not be
resent. In high reliability facilities, even software crashes and
data loss is not acceptable. Even your car is not sufficiently
reliable for them. See an IEEE paper from Montandon and Rubinstein
entitled "Some Observations on the Protection of Buildings
Against ...” to appreciate the engineering so that a lightning strike
to the building's lightning rods remains unknown to everyone and every
machine everytime.

You don't own a rocket launching facility. Consumers worry about a
rare surge that may typically exist once every seven years and that
causes surge damage. We earth a 'whole house' protector to make that
surge irrelevant AND also make other types of surges even less
possible. If more protection is necessary, then install air terminals
(Ben Franklin lightning rods). Still more protection? Well, does
that computer power supply contain what Intel specs demand? Many
clone computers are missing essential functions to sell only on price
to A+ Certified computer techs. What's inside your computer?.

There is no better solution - per dollar - than a properly earthed
'whole house' protector. It is protection from all types of surges.
Necessary so that a plug-in protector should not create Page 42 Figure
8 - 8000 volts earthed destructively through the adjacent TV. A
'whole house' protector is also installed, free, by your telco because
it is so effective and costs so little. Properly installed protection
means you 'should' never have surge damage. 'Should'? Well, how many
$thousands more would you spend to increase protection from 95% to
99%?

These concepts got lost due to incendiary posts from Bud. Bud must
keep facts confused. Profits are at risk. Notice a more useful reply
because Franc Zabkar wanted to discuss the technology - not attack the
messenger.

Due to incendiary threads, you probably never 'saw' what was always
posted - the word 'effective'.

On May 4, 11:35 am, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
...
The same thing said eight times. Part of w_tom's modus operandi -
repeat something enough times and it must be true.

If must be said eight times - and still not understood by trader -
because that is the point. He does not want to understand it.

BTW, prim and proper Englishmen insist we must never mix first,
second, and third person. They don't worry about being misinterpreted
since misinterpretation is part of being prim and proper.

Better is to mix first and third person often so that the only
thing important - the message - cannot be misconstrued. If he chooses
to do so, no problem. If w_tom chooses to do so, no problem. If I
choose to do so, no problem. Exact same meaning to everyone except
the prim and proper Englishman who would now get all caught up in a
tizzy.

No problem. trader still will deny a fact stated eight times.

All appliances contain internal protection. That protection is not
provided by MOVs no matter how many times trader says otherwise.
Protection that may be overwhelmed if the typically destructive surge
is not earthed by a 'whole house' protector. Facts remain no matter
which person is used.

Again, referring to trader's latest myth: increasingly complex
electronics now contain even better protection than those earlier,
less complex electronics. Today, international standard now require
signal interface ICs to withstand 2000 and 15,000 volts without
damage. Previous interfaces in less complex electronics could only
withstand 30 or 40 volts. trader should have known these numbers long
before he posted more myths. Increasing complex electronics are even
more robust - less likely to suffer surge damage. But again, trader
knew long before learning any facts.

On May 4, 1:24 pm, "Tantalust" wrote:
Why do you have this pompous attitude; constantly sermonizing down to people
as if they're your little, personal kindergarten class?

Ask polite or technical questions, and get straight honest
responses. If you think my tone was offensive, then review your
original post. Post like an emotional child and get a stern response.

Franc Zabkar asked a question without an incendiary intent.
Therefore a straight and honest answer. My posts to you was blunt and
honest. How blunt? It did not contain a single insulting statement or
implication. It was a hard straight answer - nothing more. And it was
appropriately terse where you make claims or denial without any
supporting facts. If you need sweet words, go find a spouse. Was
your question incendiary or based in technical curiosity?

You were neither mocked nor insulted. Your technical mistakes were
corrected accurately. Neither your emotions nor your children have a
place here. This is a technical discussion about an unpopular reality
– about facts known even 100 years ago and that contradict both
popular urban legend and retail store propaganda.

Nobody - you, me, or anyone else (should) cares about your
emotions. Your emotions don't belong in a technical discussion. You
were not mocked or insulted - just technically replied to. You don't
like the tone. Your first post set the tone. Anything after that was
simply your reflection in a mirror.