Surge Protectors
in [Repair]
|
From: bud-- on 12 Jun 2010 02:25 westom wrote: > On Jun 11, 1:27 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...(a)isp.com> wrote: >> Martzloff has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true >> earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the >> various parts of the grounding system." > > Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on plug-in > protectors? Gee - why wouldn't telcos use plug-in suppressors for their switches? Um - one reason may be because the switches are high amp hard wired and the thousands of phone circuits would have go through the suppressor? > A protector is only as effective as its > earth ground. The required religious mantra along with the drivel that has already been debunked. westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. But - surprise - still no reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. And surprise - still missing, answers to any of the 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 aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - 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 12 Jun 2010 02:31 westom wrote: > On Jun 11, 12:57 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...(a)isp.com> wrote: >> Why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day when they are hit bylightning? Do they drag an earthing chain? > > So he now wants to discuss airplanes.. westom still refuses to explain how you can protect airplanes without an earth connection. What a surprise. > Why are flying airplanes relevant? "A protector is only as effective as its earth ground." If you could figure out how airplanes are protected you could figure out how plug-in suppressors work. > In deperation, he will discuss a flying airplane. In desperation westom will ignore the question. > > Where are those numeric specs that claim protection from each type > of surge. Bud cannot provide them for one simple reason. Each type of surge is still nonsense. And westom has never explained how common mode surges get past the neutral-ground bond required in all US services. Just a few of the times specs have been provided: <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=1770++joules+author%3Abud--&btnG=Search&sitesearch=> westom will continue to lie about them just like he has every time in the past. > Numerous IEEE Standards say why bud's protectors do not claim > protection in their numeric specs. From the IEEE Red Book: The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics. And the IEEE surge guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in suppressors are effective. > > A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Ho-hum - the required religious mantra. Still no reliable 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 aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - Why don�t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"? Why can't you answer simple questions westom??? For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. -- bud--
From: bud-- on 12 Jun 2010 02:37 westom wrote: > On Jun 11, 1:13 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...(a)isp.com> wrote: >> As pointed out previously, in a plug-in suppressor the protected load >> may be connected across the MOV and be disconnected with a failing MOV. > > That is not what your protectors do. Others can observe same. A > power strip protector with the 'failed' light on still power > appliances. With minimal reading ability westom could read in the IEEE surge guide the discussion on connecting the protected load across the MOVs. At least one, and probalby both, of the suppressors I have do that. > > Or view pictures from Zerosurge: > http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html > They removed all MOVs. This is indeed a problem if there is a gang of MOV thieves operating in your neighborhood. Check with your local police. > The NIST > calls them "useless". If the village idiot was not wearing religious blinders he could read what the NIST surge guide says: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor. > Necessary even to protect protectors that bud promotes. I promote only accurate information - like the IEEE and NIST surge guides. westom promotes his religious beliefs. Just like talking to Jehovah�s Witness. > > bud will post incessently. westom will post incessantly. His belief in earthing has been challenged and cracks in his universe may develop. > And never provide one simple fact. Facts I have provided: - The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors. - The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution" - The NIST guide says "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor. - A service panel suppressor would provide no protection in the IEEE example, page 42. - The IEEE guide says in one example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector". - Martzloff says in a paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]". - Dr. Mansoor supports multiport plug-in suppressors - SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use". - SquareD service panel suppressors do not list "each type of surge". And the biggest fact: westom has never provided a source that agrees with him that plug-in suppressors do NOT work. For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. -- bud--
From: Jeffrey D Angus on 12 Jun 2010 13:18 bud-- wrote: > westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you > repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Oopsies, thread over. Due to my invoking of Goodwin's Law. Jeff -- �Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.� Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com
From: Jim Yanik on 12 Jun 2010 19:02
Jeffrey D Angus <jangus(a)suddenlink.net> wrote in news:hv0ger028cv(a)news6.newsguy.com: > bud-- wrote: >> westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you >> repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. > > Oopsies, thread over. Due to my invoking of Goodwin's Law. > > Jeff > > isn't it Godwin's Law? (DAGS) http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/ Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin(a)eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over", and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses, because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh. I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a post is unnecessary. But "westom" does post often WRT lightning protection. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |