Surge Protectors
in [Repair]
|
From: GregS on 10 Jun 2010 11:49 In article <6bd56ef5-dfe7-4ef6-be9a-95a6fdca7e04(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, westom <westom1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 10, 9:10 am, zekfr...(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote: >>> But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really >> high rating in Joules. ?? > > How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of >thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that >energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent >protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose. > > Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector >that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for >50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric >specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if >connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth >ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler- >Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite. > > It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite >numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge - >in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are >typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb >surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those >specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never >provide those specs. > > A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why >the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is >also the superior solution OK, I can't find it on their website. Read here. You say hundreds of thousands of Joules. This one has 100KA at 840 Joules This is twice the amperage as you state. http://www.drillspot.com/products/423212/Supco_SCMPLUS_Surge_Protector grge
From: GregS on 10 Jun 2010 11:53 In article <hur1gf$daq$1(a)usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, zekfrivo(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote: >In article <6bd56ef5-dfe7-4ef6-be9a-95a6fdca7e04(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > westom <westom1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>On Jun 10, 9:10 am, zekfr...(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote: >>>> But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really >>> high rating in Joules. ?? >> >> How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of >>thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that >>energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent >>protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose. >> >> Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector >>that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for >>50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric >>specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if >>connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth >>ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler- >>Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite. >> >> It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite >>numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge - >>in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are >>typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb >>surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those >>specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never >>provide those specs. >> >> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why >>the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is >>also the superior solution > >OK, I can't find it on their website. > >Read here. You say hundreds of thousands of Joules. >This one has 100KA at 840 Joules The little bitty Tripplite laptop protector is over a 1000 Joules. >This is twice the amperage as you state. > >http://www.drillspot.com/products/423212/Supco_SCMPLUS_Surge_Protector > >grge
From: Jim Yanik on 10 Jun 2010 13:38 zekfrivo(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote in news:hur1nd$df8$1(a)usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu: > In article <hur1gf$daq$1(a)usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, > zekfrivo(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote: >>In article >><6bd56ef5-dfe7-4ef6-be9a-95a6fdca7e04(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, >> westom <westom1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>On Jun 10, 9:10 am, zekfr...(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote: >>>>> But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really >>>> high rating in Joules. ?? >>> >>> How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of >>>thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that >>>energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten >>>cent protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its >>>purpose. >>> >>> Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector >>>that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for >>>50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric >>>specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth >>>if connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to >>>earth ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That >>>Cutler- Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite. >>> >>> It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that >>> Tripplite >>>numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge - >>>in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are >>>typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb >>>surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those >>>specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never >>>provide those specs. >>> >>> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why >>>the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is >>>also the superior solution >> >>OK, I can't find it on their website. >> >>Read here. You say hundreds of thousands of Joules. >>This one has 100KA at 840 Joules > > > The little bitty Tripplite laptop protector is over a 1000 Joules. > >>This is twice the amperage as you state. >> >>http://www.drillspot.com/products/423212/Supco_SCMPLUS_Surge_Protector >> >>grge > surge protectors don't ABSORB strike energy,they shunt it to ground,providing a low resistance path to ground. Instead of the energy passing thru your equipment on it's way to ground. A higher Joules rating means the device absorbs less than a lower rated device,and thus can divert more energy before IT blows up. One more limit is your home wiring;how much strike energy can those lines carry? (to ground) and how good is the house ground? -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: bud-- on 11 Jun 2010 12:57 westom wrote: > On Jun 10, 9:10 am, zekfr...(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote: >>> But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really >> high rating in Joules. ?? > > How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of > thousands of joules. So service panel suppressors absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? > How does that Tripplite magically make all that > energy disappear? It doesn't. Of course not. As explained early in this thread, the amount of energy that can reach a plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small. The information came from Martzloff, the NIST expert on surges. > That $3 power strip with some ten cent > protector parts is selling for how much? One of the suppressors I use has 3 MOVs with ratings of 590J each. Provide a source for a 590J MOV for $.10. > > Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector > that costs less than $50. Last I heard this didn't exist. Apparently Greg couldn't find it either. > Why does that Tripplite > numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge - > in numbers? Why does service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD not list "each type of surge in numbers"? Because it is nonsense - just another bogus argument. UL listed suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That is all possible combinations and all possible surges. > How does its hundreds of joules absorb > surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? How does "hundreds of joules absorb surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules" in a service panel suppressor? It doesn't. Neither service panel or plug-in suppressors protect by absorbing energy. They absorb some energy in the process of protecting. > Ask bud for those > specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never > provide those specs. I have provided specs often, so have others. They are always ignored by westom, who just continues to repeat his lies. > > A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. The religious (immune form challenge) belief in earthing. Why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day when they are hit by lightning? Do they drag an earthing chain? Still missing - answers to simple questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42? - Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors? - Why don�t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"? For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. -- bud--
From: bud-- on 11 Jun 2010 13:09
westom wrote: > On Jun 9, 2:40 pm, zekfr...(a)zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote: >> I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap. >> I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price. >> This is a basic model.................. >> http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search > > Bud's job is > to promote plug-in protectors. Lacking any valid technical arguments westom attacks those who challenge his nonsense. > So he will say anything to avoid that > reality. westom will say anything to avoid the reality that plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE, NIST, General Electric, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Keison, and Square D all say they are. > Every responsible source discusses earth as the means of > eliminating those voltage differences. It is the religious belief (immune from challenge) in earthing. Everyone is in favor of earthing. And every responsible source says plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE surge guide explains, for those that can think, that plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on each wire to the ground at the suppressor, not earthing. The IEEE says earthing occurs elsewhere in the system. > > To do that means the protector must connect even direct lightning > strikes harmlessly to earth. To connect 20,000 amps (a typical > lightning strike) harmlessly to earth means, at minimum, a 50,000 amps > protector. At 24,000 amps, you would need two of those Grainger > protectors just to do a minimum. A 20,000A direct lightning strike to a power line will have multiple paths to earth. The maximum surge current to a house from a much more powerful lightning is 10,000A according to accepted standards. The IEEE surge guide recommends - for homes - ratings of 20-70kA, or for high lightning areas 40-120kA. westom, of course, is smarter than the IEEE. > > More responsible companies make these 'whole house' protector > including General Electric, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Keison, and > Square D. All these "responsible companies" except SquareD make plug-in suppressors. SquareD says for their "best" service panel suppressor "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." > Surges created by motors > are the myth that Bud promotes westom is prone to hallucinations. "Motors are not a particular surge threat in a home." > Ask bud for the manufacturer spec that claims protection from > each type of surge. He works in this business. The lie repeated - 2nd time. > > UL is only about human safety. Says nothing about whether a > protector is effective. Nonsense. As has been detailed previously, a UL listed suppressor has to suppress a series of surges and remain functional. > He will not even admit he is paid to promote plug- > in protectors - ie that Tripplite. The lie repeated - 3rd time. > > What will that Tripplite do when its hundreds of joules somehow > absorbs surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Explode. > Vaporize. Create a human safety problem also seen in these other > scary pictures: > http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 In addition to completely failing to understand how any suppressor works, westom refuses to understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since 1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label. But with no valid technical arguments all westom has is pathetic scare tactics. > Bud's job is to keep you from learning these realities. The lie repeated - 4th time. > Plug-in protectors (ie that Tripplite) require > protection that only earthing and the 'whole house' protector can > provide. Funny - neither the IEEE or NIST surge guides mention that. Another of westom's hallucinations > Yes, to do what bud is claiming, > you must buy at least 20 plug-in protectors for all over house. Yet another hallucination. > > Did bud forget to mention what his job is? The lie repeated - 5th time. People with valid arguments don't have to lie. Still missing - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Still missing - answers to simple questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42? - Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. -- bud-- |