lie, doesn't make it true."
You've made the accusation. So, now it should be easy to provide us with some examples where Fox News lies or repeats something that isn't true. We're waiting, but I'll bet like almost all who slam Fox, you can't back it up.
I foolishly assumed you had basic electrical knowledge. You are foolishly assuming normal mode currents. Destructive surges are longitudinal mode cu rrents.
With basic knowledge, you know why surges (including direct lightning strik es) cause no damage in munitions dumps. Ufer grounds. Proven protection. Why do you know otherwise? Apparently you do not even grasp some basic ele ctrical concepts.
You assumed a current incoming (ie left to right) on one AC wire is also returning (right to left) on another AC wire. Please learn basic electrica l concepts rather than posting assumptions and disparaging comments. A des tructive transients is incoming on any or all AC wires (ie left to right). And outgoing destructively through the appliance in that same direction to earth. Your plug-in protector sees near zero voltage during a current that only flows in one direction on all wires. That same current that creates near zero voltage in a protector also creates maybe 3000 volts destructivel y through an adjacent appliance. Overwhelms protection inside that applian ce.
Page 42 Figure 8 of an NIST document demonstrates same. A protector too f ar from earth ground must earth that surge destructively via an adjacent TV . Why does the NIST show 8000 volts in that TV when at protector supposedl y limits voltage to 330 volts? Because the protector sees near zero voltag e while the TV is damaged by 8000 volts. Now I understand why you do not u nderstand page 42 figure 8. You do not even know the difference between no rmal and longitudinal mode currents.
A destructive current created no voltage across a protector while creatin g 8000 volts destructively in the adjacent TV. Page 42 figure 8. An adjace nt protector did nothing to protect nearby appliances. It was too far from earth ground. It only claims to protect from a different type of transien t - that typically causes no damage.
This electrical concept is so basic as to be taught to first semester eng ineers. Common knowledge says destructive surges are current mode transient . Not voltage mode (ie 2000 volts) as you repeatedly assume.
Furthermore, if the protector was at 2000 volts, then it was destroyed - a potential fire hazard. You did not even know that?
Either current is harmlessly absorbed in earth BEFORE entering a building . Or current goes hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Repeate d not because you will suddenly grasp it. You do not even cite one spec nu mber or electrical fact. Why deny what is common knowledge among professio nal? Basic electrical concepts were not learned. As demonstrated by your protector at 2000 volts.
When facilities suffer damage, professional fix a primary reason for damag e. Defective earthing.
For example, a case study of a Nebraska radio station where grounds were compromised due to same technical ignorance. How did they eliminate damage ? No protectors. Instead the reason for lightning damage was upgraded, re stored, or installed at each tier. Each tier (layer of protection) is defi ned by an earth ground. In this case study, they even upgraded the 'primar y' surge protection layer - the electric company's earth ground:
We have been through your denials, insufficient electrical knowledge, no spec numbers, and insults repeatedly. You do not even understand the diffe rence between a current source and a voltage source. And why that is releva nt. You even assumed a protector works on a 2000 volt transient. Somehow know a plug-in protector does more when even the manufacturer does not clai m that protection.
If a plug-in protector did everything as you claimed, then manufacturer s pecification numbers were posted. No numbers provided for one simple reaso n. Lack of technical knowledge? Even the manufacturer does not claim to p rotect from another and typically destructive surge. You do not even under stand the difference between longitudinal and normal mode currents - as dem onstrated on page 42 figure 8.
A report from an AT&T conference discusses that. Describes why plug-in p rotectors have limited abilities and why the 'whole house' solution does so much more (despite your repeated denials): [quote]
[/quote]Why do professional discuss earthing of a 'whole house' protector as crit ical - despite your incessant denials? Why do you claim a plug-in protecto r is a superior solution when professionals state otherwise ... with number s?
That last post says why. You do not even know the difference between a c urrent and voltage mode transient. Instead post mocking insults - as if th at proves electrical knowledge. Even basics demonstrated on page 42 figure 8 escape you. Somehow 2000 volts on a protector is protection? Please l earn some basic electrical concepts.
Professionals state: a protector is only as effective as its earth ground . A plug-in protector does what already exists inside each appliance. And it sees near zero voltage when a typically destructive transient (ie 8000 v olts) overwhelms protection inside that appliance. Understanding requires basic concepts such as normal verse longitudinal mode..
Of course you could, for once, post that plug-in protector spec that clai m to protect from the other and typically destructive surge. Never posted in posts that only belittle ? as if that proves expertise. Manufacturer does not claim protection from typically destructive surges. Only claims t o protect from surges already made irrelevant by what is inside every appli ance. So you will post more nasty replies. To mask a reality ? you do n ot even understand relevant electrical concepts. Insults only prove your k nowledge banks are bankrupt.
Of course you could surprise everyone. Post a plug-in protector specific ation that claims protection from each type of surge. Even the AT&T report says why that will never happen.
Westom does not understand the excellent example from the IEEE (not NIST) surge guide. (I posted a link to both surge guides.)
Anyone with minimal mental abilities (which does not include westom) can discover what the IEEE surge guide says in this example:
- A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- The illustration "shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors"
It is simply a lie that the plug-in protector in the IEEE example damages the second TV.
In the example, a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the earthing system at the power service that is far too long. With minimal mental abilities westom would have read that "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
And with minimal mental abilities westom's would have figured out his favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO protection.
All this has been posted many times but westom just ignores anything that does not fit his very limited beliefs about surge protection.
We have been through westom's denials, insufficient electrical knowledge, and insults repeatedly.
Westom googles for "surge" to spread his beliefs. He has joined an astonishing number of forums. Unfortunately some of westom's beliefs are complete nonsense. It is like talking to a mormon missionary.
Simple questions westom is not able to answer:
- Why do the only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest solution"?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "Plug-in...The easiest of all for anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to choose?'"
- Why does the IEEE surge guide says for distant entry points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
Manufacturer specs have been posted by many people. They are always ignored, just like westom ignores anything that does not fit his very limited beliefs about surge protection.
Complete nonsense.
Some manufacturers even have protected equipment warranties.
Professionals state: plug-in protectors do not work primarily by earthing (IEEE surge guide, starting page 30). And plug-in protectors primarily work by limiting the voltage from each wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. The voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment.
Just another thing westom ignores.
One of westom's favorite lies.
Another is that service panel protectors provide 99+% protection. The
99+% figures come from the IEEE "Green" book and are for lightning rods. They have absolutely nothing to do with surge protectors.
In the event of a strong surge that is earthed, or a near lightning strike, the pad under a compressor/condenser can be at a far different potential than the building electrical "ground". The compressor is at the potential of the pad and the wires at the potential of the electrical "ground". The difference can be high enough to damage the compressor. It is described in the IEEE surge guide page 34. The guide describes surge protection at the compressor, as in your post above.
y assuming normal mode currents. Destructive surges are longitudinal mode currents.
I assumed no such thing.
ikes) cause no damage in munitions dumps. Ufer grounds. Proven protection . Why do you know otherwise? Apparently you do not even grasp some basic e lectrical concepts.
Funny that what I grasp is consistent with IEEE and NIST. And they say plug-in surge protectors should be used as part of a tiered protection strategy.
o returning (right to left) on another AC wire. Please learn basic electri cal concepts rather than posting assumptions and disparaging comments. A d estructive transients is incoming on any or all AC wires (ie left to right) . And outgoing destructively through the appliance in that same direction t o earth.
Now current only flows left to right? Good grief!
Your plug-in protector sees near zero voltage during a current that only f lows in one direction on all wires. That same current that creates near ze ro voltage in a protector also creates maybe 3000 volts destructively throu gh an adjacent appliance. Overwhelms protection inside that appliance.
Nonsense. If a TV is connected to a surge protector and both the AC wires and the Cable TV going into it run through the surge protector, how could the TV see a 3000V surge, while the surge protector sees nothing....
far from earth ground must earth that surge destructively via an adjacent TV. Why does the NIST show 8000 volts in that TV when at protector suppose dly limits voltage to 330 volts? Because the protector sees near zero volt age while the TV is damaged by 8000 volts. Now I understand why you do not understand page 42 figure 8. You do not even know the difference between normal and longitudinal mode currents.
Good grief! The discussion of figure 8 that you talk about above ends with:
"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
It doesn't say that plug-ins don't work. It doesn't say that they cause damage. It says that in a situation where you have two TVs, if you don't have a surge protector on the second TV, it's not protectd.
Why do you try to use a reference and totally ignore the overall message that the reference presents. In this case, that message is, that plug-in protectors do work.
ing 8000 volts destructively in the adjacent TV. Page 42 figure 8. An adja cent protector did nothing to protect nearby appliances. It was too far fr om earth ground. It only claims to protect from a different type of transi ent - that typically causes no damage.
See above
ngineers. Common knowledge says destructive surges are current mode transie nt. Not voltage mode (ie 2000 volts) as you repeatedly assume.
You must have gone to a special college where they brainwashed you on surge protectors, starting first semester. The rest of us were busy taking calculus, physics, chemistry, and maybe on EE course on circuit theory.
a potential fire hazard. You did not even know that?
That's a lie.
ng. Or current goes hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Repea ted not because you will suddenly grasp it. You do not even cite one spec number or electrical fact. Why deny what is common knowledge among profess ional? Basic electrical concepts were not learned. As demonstrated by you r protector at 2000 volts.
Both Bud and I cited the IEEE guide and NIST. Both say you're wrong.
Speaking of the requirement for an earth ground, without which there is no possibility of lightning protection, better give Boeing a call. Their planes are fully protected, yet they don't trail a copper wire connected to a ground rod.
age. Defective earthing.
You'd fix a primary reason as a surge protector, no matter if a bulldozer destroyed the building.
e compromised due to same technical ignorance. How did they eliminate dama ge? No protectors. Instead the reason for lightning damage was upgraded, restored, or installed at each tier. Each tier (layer of protection) is de fined by an earth ground.
The IEEE and NIST say you're wrong.
In this case study, they even upgraded the 'primary' surge protection laye r - the electric company's earth ground:
o spec numbers, and insults repeatedly. You do not even understand the dif ference between a current source and a voltage source.
Sigh. Yes I do. And I know about Norton equivalents and Thevenin equivalents. I learned that in college while you were apparently being brainwashed about surge protectors. As for surge protectors being in college curriculum, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a college that has that in their courses.
And why that is relevant. You even assumed a protector works on a 2000 vol t transient. Somehow know a plug-in protector does more when even the manu facturer does not claim that protection.
Sigh, of course surge protector is capable of handling a 2000V surge.
specification numbers were posted. No numbers provided for one simple rea son. Lack of technical knowledge? Even the manufacturer does not claim to protect from another and typically destructive surge. You do not even und erstand the difference between longitudinal and normal mode currents - as d emonstrated on page 42 figure 8.
Sigh, no numbers posted because no numbers were requested. If you like, go look at them yourself.
protectors have limited abilities and why the 'whole house' solution does so much more (despite your repeated denials):
Lack of a link, so that we can read the whole thing in context, again noted. You took the NIST document and completely lied about what it says. You selected one diagram, one part of the document and tried to use it above. Anyone can go to page 42, read it and see that it ends with them saying to protect the TV that had no surge protector, you just need to use one. So, if you lie that way, why would anyone trust your random excerpts of anything?
itical - despite your incessant denials? Why do you claim a plug-in protec tor is a superior solution when professionals state otherwise ... with numb ers?
NIST, IEEE are professionals and they say you're nuts.
current and voltage mode transient. Instead post mocking insults - as if that proves electrical knowledge. Even basics demonstrated on page 42 figu re 8 escape you.
The part that escaped you was that it concludes with the statement that to protect TV2 that was damaged by a surge, you add a plug-in surge protector to it.
Somehow 2000 volts on a protector is protection? Please learn some basic electrical concepts.
nd. A plug-in protector does what already exists inside each appliance.
Again, how the hell do MOVs inside an appliance provide surge protection, when much larger and effective MOVs inside a plug-in protector do not. Does your tV come with a built-in earth ground?
And it sees near zero voltage when a typically destructive transient (ie 8
000 volts) overwhelms protection inside that appliance. Understanding requ ires basic concepts such as normal verse longitudinal mode..aim to protect from the other and typically destructive surge. Never poste d in posts that only belittle ? as if that proves expertise
No belittling, no attacks, just the facts. Unless you think it's belittling that I pointed out that the only time you show up in AHR is when someone mentions surge protector.
Manufacturer does not claim protection from typically destructive surges. Only claims to protect from surges already made irrelevant by what is insi de every appliance. So you will post more nasty replies. To mask a realit y ? you do not even understand relevant electrical concepts. Insults onl y prove your knowledge banks are bankrupt.
Yawn...
Many years go this guy wrote up an magazine article, then a book. It's not so much for house protection, but equipment protection, and noise protection. It's a bible. Good read.
Greg
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.