Surge / Ground / Lightning

On May 6, 10:33*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
w_tom wrote:

On May 6, 12:08 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
* *Where did I say HOW was protected? It was my second week at that
station, and the chief engineer took off on a long overdue vacation. If
you would learn to read, rather than just do mindless rants you wouldn't
look so stupid. *At that time the building had a UFER ground, and a
three phase protection system at the meter CTs. That didn't prevent the
damage, as you claim it should.

* Lightning created damage. *Since Michael Terrell says it had an Ufer
ground, that means grounding was properly installed and not
corrupted? *Therefore the resulting damage proves, "Woe is me.
Nothing can protect from lightning."? *Nonsense.

* *That's it, _wacko_. *Use more misdirection. *It is YOU who claims
that broadcast facilities sustain no damage from lightning strikes.

* Damage was created by a surge. *A responsible human locates the
defect in that protection system. *Michael Terrell was defeatist. *He
'knew' nothing can earthing lightning without damage.

* *More _wacko_ lies, as expected.

* Then Michael posts nonsense about other protectors so he need not
admit this fact: MOVs are not used on telephone lines. *Why discuss
fuses? *Fuses obviously are not for surge protection - when one has
basic electrical knowledge. * Effective protectors (even gas discharge
tubes - GDTs) earth direct lightning strikes and remain functional.

* So why is Michael now discussing GDTs and fuses?

* If you could read and comprehend you would know. *Sadly, you are too
ignorant to understand what you read.

*Michael has again
been caught posting in error. *MOVs are not used for telephone line
surge protection due to excessive capacitance.

* *Liar. *You keep telling this lie, even though I posted links to two
telephone cards using them, as well as the datasheets form one of many
OEMs who make MOVs for Telecom service. *The stated capacitance is 480
pF *Tell us how that affects the bandwidth, when the line to the
building has a higher capacitance.

*This has long been
common knowledge among those who post facts - not insults.

* *gee, stop posting lies and insults, and learn the truth.

*Nnoted and
finally admitted by Michael is a reasons why so little lightning in
the UK creates so much damage.

* *Another blatant lie. I never mentioned anything to do with protection
in the UK, _wacko_.

*Master sockets are not even earthed as
the equivlant NID is, routinely, in all North America.

* *You didn't even look at that Epcos link, did you? *You can't admit
that you are the biggest idiot and liar on USENET. *It doesn't really
matter, everyone sees through your pathetic attempts to distort the
truth. When that doesn't work, you fall back on lies and omissions to
smear anyone you don't agree with.

* Responsible people who suffer surge damage immediately search for
the human failure that made damage possible.

* *I did look. *What I found was large chunks of concrete blown away,
and pieces of burnt rebar from a direct strike.

*Search typically begins
by looking for defects in the single point earth ground system.

* *Now UFER is single point in a 10,000 Sq. Ft building?

*Those
who promote magic box plug-in protectors would not do this and must
assume lightning damage cannot be avoided - a defeatist attitude.

* *You are the one with an attitude. *Very little can be done to protect
from a direct strike. Some towers have had entire sections vaporized
from multiple strikes during a single storm, yet you continue to lie, by
stating it can't happen. No where did I claim that plug-in protection
was used. *This is another of your lies. *You ignored the fact that I
had never even seen most of the building, because I was just hired. I
was in the accounting office, right by the side door, and parking lot
where I filled out the application.

* *Here is the part you snipped, because you can't tell your ignorant
lies, and leave it in:
__________________________________________________ _________________________*_

* *Gee, _wacko_ you've never seen ANY modern business telephone
equipment? *Gas tubes are fragile and very expensive. The protection
isn't to save the privately owned telephones, it it to limit damage to
the building. *Even that mid '60s 1A2 system had every output of the
power supply fused to prevent a fire. Explain why an MOV's capacitance
is high enough to affect a phone line. Never mind. *I have a Nitsuko/NEC
DX2NA-32SYTEMEM KEY TELEPHONE SYSTEM in front of me, and every CO line
in it has a MOV across the line. *Once more, you're preaching lies and
using deceit to try to make others look bad.

http://refurbishednitsuko.net/productInfo.aspx?productID=75978489-9ac....
is the Central Office line card for four telephone lines. See the black
MOVs to the right of each pair of fuses?

http://refurbishednitsuko.net/productInfo.aspx?productID=f5453e33-047....
is the card for four standard 2500 type telephones, or equivalent
equipment. See the pairs of black MOVs over the blue connectors at the
bottom of the screen? They are all japanese, with no brand markings.

http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/Publications/PDF/SIOV...
is the Epcos MOV databook, with datasheets for Telecom applications.
page 213 list the TELECOM MOV data.

* *Every line into that studio building had a long distance call device
diverter in the line that had MOV across the phone line. Every one of
them survived the direct hit to the building and STL tower. That's more
than can be said of your ability to use reason, and learn new things.

* *You need to get your head out of 1920 and learn modern electronics.
The one thing we learned today is that you don't know any more about
Telecom that you do lightning protection, or reading comprehension.
__________________________________________________ _________________________*_

--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


LOL Haven't you seen W_ in action before? This is one of his
standard rants repeated many times. According to W_ any damage from
lightning or surges MUST be do to HUMAN failure.

wrote:
I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. They don't rate
their ability to function as "surge protectors".


UL evaluates surge suppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.
Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.

How can one find this rating for a particular device?

Whatever surge suppression protection you're looking for, make sure
the surge suppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient Voltage Surge
Suppressors.

http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html

"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, a surge may have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, the surge suppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/toc...=s&fn=1449.toc

Thanks for the reference.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

VWWall wrote:
see original post

http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html

"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, a surge may have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, the surge suppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

This should read "Joules". See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varistor

for some useful information.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

wrote:

LOL Haven't you seen W_ in action before? This is one of his
standard rants repeated many times. According to W_ any damage from
lightning or surges MUST be do to HUMAN failure.



Yes, I've seen that, and more. That's why I refute his crap. If he
isn't refuted, people who don't know any better will believe him.


--
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

"w_tom" wrote in message
...
On May 6, 2:45 pm, Sjouke Burry
wrote:
Can you trim W_tom with that?? Or is he incurable?

He is incurable as long as others post outright lies and myths while
denying what really provides surge protection. Now to discuss what is
relevant.


What's becoming more relevant here every day is your mental illness. . . . .
along with your terrible OCD disadvantage, constantly referring to yourself
in the third-person is pointing to a flourishing
Depersonalization/Dissociative Identity Disorder. You can look it up.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
wrote:
LOL Haven't you seen W_ in action before? This is one of his
standard rants repeated many times. According to W_ any damage from
lightning or surges MUST be do to HUMAN failure.



Yes, I've seen that, and more. That's why I refute his crap. If he
isn't refuted, people who don't know any better will believe him.

Just ask him about using a 3 1/2 digit VOM to check out those lousy ATX
power supplies thet everyone is fostering on us. ;-)

--
Virg Wall

wrote:

Or his statements about how lightning strikes exactly once every 8
years. He's got a whole repertoire of these beauties. I no longer see
his posts unless they are quoted in someone else's replies, as I
filter all posts in alt.home.repair that come from googlegroups. I
really don't miss him, as he just endlessly repeats the same garbage
that he's been spewing for a decade on usenet. He's a complete kook.


Not quite complete. He's still breathing.


--
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

VWWall wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
wrote:
LOL Haven't you seen W_ in action before? This is one of his
standard rants repeated many times. According to W_ any damage from
lightning or surges MUST be do to HUMAN failure.



Yes, I've seen that, and more. That's why I refute his crap. If he
isn't refuted, people who don't know any better will believe him.

Just ask him about using a 3 1/2 digit VOM to check out those lousy ATX
power supplies thet everyone is fostering on us. ;-)


He's no better at choosing a meter than he is at thinking.


--
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 7, 2:37*pm, VWWall wrote:
wrote:
I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. *They don't rate
their ability to function as "surgeprotectors".

UL evaluatessurgesuppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.
Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.

How can one find this rating for a particular device?

Look for ul1449 330v or 400 for example, or surge voltage rating SVR
330v or Clamping Category 330v


Whateversurgesuppression protection you're looking for, make sure
thesurgesuppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient VoltageSurge
Suppressors.

http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html

"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, asurgemay have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, thesurgesuppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

MOV’s and surge protectors are like tires on your car, the more you
use them the shorter useful life, mistreat them, the shorter the
useful life, too small or light weight the shorter the useful life.
Ul 1449 certification take care of the too small or light weight.
Proper selection for problem locations is the key to protection.

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! *They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

Don’t pay attention to joules on surge protectors, no standard to
measure, a better and recommended rating is “Peak Surge Current” the
higher the better.

http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/toc...=s&fn=1449.toc

Thanks for the reference.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:21:16 +0300, Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
Ï "Tantalust" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
. ..
"NB" wrote in message
...
Who is W_TOM and why has he appeared in every single thread that has
contained those keywords since 2001???

He an obsessive-compulsive disorder victim, apparently driven by some kind
of bizarre fetish involving ground rods.

What kind of ground rods? I prefer steel core, copper clad ones:-) I even
have the special heavy hammer

I saw one in one of the "Popular this-n-that" mags, that used a piece of
copper pipe, with a hose fitting on the end. You point the pipe at the
ground, turn on the hose, and the water digs its hole for it. Then, you
can take the hose fitting off, cap the pipe, and have a pretty decent
ground stake.

Maybe it was one of the ham mags.

Cheers!
Rich