DIY surge protection...

Page 4 of 5  

wrote:

Translations. You said no numbers exist because you never learned how electricity works. Those numbers are from the Bell System Technical Journals. Only one of us learned this stuff.
He said those numbers do not exist. Stated was that telco COs suffer about 100 surges with each thunderstorm. Actual numbers are maybe 30 to 50 surges per cable times how many incoming cables? Well over 100 surges with each thunderstorm. And no damage. Telcos use 'whole house' protectors. Waste no money on overpriced and ineffective plug-in protectors. Therefore have no damage
Yawn is Michael Terrell avoiding his problem: insufficient electrical knowledge. Yawn because he was again caught posting a lie. His insufficient education has been exposed so often that Michael will constantly post disparaging remarks - and no technical knowledge..
Reality remains as it was 100 years ago. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Reality that makes Michael so enraged as to post personal attacks rather than science numbers and professional citations.
.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

What did you learn that is current technology? You keep quoting 100 year old data for designs that are no longer used.

What cables? Fber Optic may be bundled, but aren't conductive.

--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In wrote:

Wow; that's quite a mess of unverifiable and misleading misinformation! Earth ground is NOT the most critical protection object. It isn't even necessary for protection from longitudinal surges, in fact. This is a mess of guesses with an attempt to hopefully sound like you know what you're talking about, but you don't.
Beware that poster's advice.
HTH,
Twayne`
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Twayne wrote:

He's been trolling with the same crap for years. :(
--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So why do all telcos require their protectors connected from each wire to earth? Why does every telco bring every wire into underground vaults where a protector connects within feet to earth - for longitudinal mode transients? And why has this been the routine solution for over 100 years?
Why does the NIST say grounding is required for protection?

So the NIST also has it wrong?
IEEE Standard 141 (Red Book) says:

What is lightning? A longitudinal mode surge. So the NIST is wrong. The IEEE is wrong. The US Air Force is also wrong when protector are required to located as close to where wires enter the building and earth ground?
Instead of posted anything technical, you also post insults? Of course. That is what the less technically informed do. Where is this IEEE paper that shows longitudinal mode protection is without earth ground? Every paper I read is always about earth ground. Even this professional's application note says every wire must connect to earth before entering the building. But since you know better, then the professional is lying? We should believe you only because you can insult?
From Compliance Engineering entitled "Resettable Circuit Protection for Telecom Network Equipment" is: > In longitudinal mode, the overstress is present between tip-and- ring

IOW longitudinal surges seek earth ground destructively via electronics. How do you stop it? Do you magically stop what even three miles of sky could not? Of course not. Do you magically make that energy just disappear? Of course not. The routine solution for over 100 years is to do even what Ben Franklin lightning rods do. Connect the longitudinal mode surge to earth. The energy is not inside the building hunting for earth ground destructively via appliances.
The NIST says how critical earth ground is:

So, if earth ground is not important, then Franklin was wrong to earth his lightning rods? That is what you have posted. Franklin's lightning rods work because lightning - a longitudinal mode surge - is connected to earth. - where energy is harmlessly dissipated. Where is that energy absorbed if not in earth? Please, show me this magic device that can stop what three miles of sky cannot. That will magically absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? When surge protection is always about earth ground, how do you know they are wrong? Because you can post venom? Why is earthing for surge routine in every facility that can never suffer damage? And why has that always been the solution for over 100 years? Clearly they must be wrong because you can insult.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

Everyone is in favor of earthing.
The NEC requires the service neutral to be bonded to the ground and both be connected to earthing electrode(s). (That directly earths any surge on the neutral.)
The NEC requires an entrance protector for telephone wires, with the voltage on the wires clamped to a terminal connected to the earthing system.
The NEC requires a ground block on cable and antenna coax where the cable enters the building with the ground block connected to the earthing system. (That does not limit the voltage on the center conductor.)
That is the required wiring under the NEC.
With a strong surge current to earth, the building "ground" system can rise thousands of volts above "absolute" earth potential. Much of the protection is actually that the power, cable, phone, ... wires rise together. (If phone and cable entry protectors are not near the power service and connected with short ground wires that can not be assured.) According to Martzloff, improving the interconnections between systems is more important than reducing the resistance to earth.

Still not explained - why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

Your religious blinders do not allow you to read anything in the papers that contradicts your religious belief in earthing.
Like a Martzloff paper that says "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." You have often try to make the paper say the opposite of what Martzaloff was saying.

That certainly solves almost all of the surge problem.
But it is hard to get power, telephone and cable through the earthed wires.

w thinks plug-in suppressors are "magic" because his religious blinders prevent him from reading the clear explanation in the IEEE guide of how they work.

Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread) but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

With respect to plug-in suppressors what does the NIST guide really say? They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still never answered - 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, pdf 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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors? - Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

According to Bud, that energy magically disappears. Clamping somehow make energy disappear? He says that often. Meanwhile the NIST (his own citation) says what happens when the protector cannot connect that energy to earth:

Or Dr Martzloff who discusses the same problems in his 1994 paper. A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even cause damage to nearby appliances. It is the first conclusion in that IEEE paper:

Each layer of protection is defined by the only item that makes surge energy harmless. Protection is always about where energy dissipated. And why more responsible companies sell the 'whole house' protector. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. An effective protector also costs tens or 100 times less money per protected appliance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

eliminates the difference in potential
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:11:49 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@mickymall.com

It should be be equipted with a spark gap for high voltage high current lightening strikes plus MOVs to get the voltage down to relatively safe levels. The energy is mostly disappated in the MOV and into the wiring and ground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of those same responsible companies also sell plug-in surge protectors too. Some recommend using them in conjunction with their whole house surge protectors. So there goes that arguement. One would think W would have learned to stop bringing this bogus argument up since it's so easy to demolish, but here we go again.
>A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. An

Still waiting for an explanation of the obvious contradiction here. W claims that all electronics and appliances have built-in surge protection and that it works. Now, if surge protection is only possible with a short direct connection to earth ground, how is that protection possible? And how is it that the same components, ie MOVs inside a TV can be effective, yet even larger ones in a plug-in surge protector next to the TV are ineffective?
How is it that electrical systems on airplanes are protected from surges? Where is their earth ground?
And if W knows so much about surge protection, where is the link to that 50KA rated whole house surge protector for less than $50 that he claimed is available at HD?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 26, 6:35 pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

And so would I. If you are so misinformed as to spend up to $150 for an APC or Monster protector, well, GE sells the equivalent product for $15.
Meanwhile the IEEE puts numbers to this stuff. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector is 99.5 to 99.9% protection. That 'whole house' protector required to even protect those ineffective plug-in protectors. Plug-in protectors that will magically absorb hundreds of thousands of joules can create these scary pictures (and the fire marshal who describes why the threat exists: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 / http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm http://www.pennsburgfireco.com/fullstory.php?58339
To avoid that failure, the informed consumer earths one 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Then those $40 and $150 per appliance protectors for the additional 0.2% protection might do something useful.
But then the IEEE says what a properly earthed 'whole house' protector does:

Why spend $60 per appliance for a plug-in protector once the effective solution is installed? The 'whole house' protector is required to even protect plug-in protectors. But that would not reap obscene profits for the less responsible companies that only sell the ineffective protector. So myths are promoted. Discussion of earth ground avoided. Insult posted by the usual nay sayers.
The informed homeowner installed a whole house protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Then may spend tens of times more money for a plug-in protector to add the maybe 0.2% additional protection so that the surge maybe once every 6000 years might be further constrained. Plug-in protectors without a whole house protector do not even claim to provide the necessary protection. But companies such as Monster must forget that. A $3 power strip with some ten cent protector parts and expensive paint selling for $150. Profit is its real purpose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Square the above statement with calling those manufacturers "responsible". How can they be responsible if they are selling dangerous and ineffective products?

WoW ! Stop the presses. This is something new. Previously W had always argued that plug-in surge protectors were totally useless or actually dangerous because protection without a short direct connection to earth ground was impossible. Now for the first time, it seems protection is not impossible, but instead has an effectiveness of .2%. At least that's a step in the right direction.
Also, obvioulsy you are grossly misinformed about plug-in surge protectors because good ones can be had for a lot less than $40 to $150 each, let alone per appliance. I have a $25 one sitting behind my TV that has 6 pieces of electronics plugged into it. That works out to $4 an appliance, not $40.
Now lets deal with the frightnening pictures. My W you have been busy searching haven't you? Here's the most serious problem. How many photos could one find of TVs, toasters, stereos or other common appliances that also had failures that caused fires? How many plug- in surge protectors are there that are in use? Probably in the hundreds of millions. So, to find 6 that caught fire isn't something extraordinary. Note that at least some of those are identified as older ones that do not have thermal protection that all new ones must. The rest we don't know how old they were or if they had thermal protection, which they probably did not.
And these units are being indicted for having MOVs. Guess what else has MOVs that are even smaller? Your TV, radio, stereo, dishwasher, oven, etc. So, again, how is it that according to W if you put an MOV inside a plug-in surge protector it's a fire hazard. But put a smaller one inside a plastic radio and it becomes effective protection?
Also notice that NONE of the links said that plug-in surge protectors are ineffective, dangerous and should be avoided. Some of them even talked about how to use them.

Yes and they also show plug-in surge protectors used too and recommend them. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, like W's myth that these companies are "less responsible", while we've shown him over and over again that the major electric gear companies he calls "responsible" also sell them.
>Discussion of earth

Yes, avoided indeed, because W can't explain the contradictions:
How is it that MOVs inside an appliance provide surge protection that W says works, yet MOVs located in a plug-in are not effective?
How is it that MOVs inside a whole house surge protector are peachy keen? They too are subject to the same failure modes after a surge that is too large or after repeated smaller surges. Many of them are also housed in plastic.
If a direct connection to earth ground is the only way to achieve protection, how are electronics in airplanes protected?

Please provide a reference for those numbers, pulled out of thin air. While you're at it, please provide a reference that agrees with you that plug-in protectors are totally ineffective. Or is it now that they are not totally ineffective, just .2% effective?
Also, perhaps you forgot, but I haven't. Still waiting for your link to HD for their 50KA rated surge protector for less than $50.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 28, 9:18 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Even I would sell you the Brooklyn Bridge if you want to buy it. After all, why should I keep you from scamming yourself. Meanwhile, only responsible companies also sell the well proven and effective 'whole house' protectors - no matter how he will spin it into a lie.
Again he reposts the same lie. He has done this often through the years. I did not call protectors "totally useless". But then trader reads what emotions tell him to read. I called them ineffective. The NIST called them "useless":

Ham radio operators who also learn this stuff from professionals, science, and experience say same: "grounding system" http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/2002-07/msg00760.html 1. Engineer your station to *keep the lightning out*. 2. High floor hamshack locations need to have their SPG lightning protection at a ground level entry-point. From there, run your coax/ control cables inside. ... 4. Read the PolyPhaser book(s)
So those who use education and science learn from responsible companies such as Polyphase (trader will not)r: http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx
Keep lightning out is about where energy dissipates. Either energy dissipates harmlessly in earth - outside the building. Or energy is inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Ham radio operators get to learn this quicker because Ham stations suffer even more surges.
From snipped-for-privacy@aol.com in "grounding system": http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/2002-07/msg00759.html

But again what we know because we learned from science - not propaganda from retail shelves.
Who to believe? People who do this stuff without damage? And who learned basic electrical concepts? Or trader who routinely does his usual attacks. He knows only because sales propaganda and his emotions educated him. His ego will not permit him to admit he was deceived..
None of which changes what the electrically trained knew even 100 years ago. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Attacks will continue. More professionals will be quoted to expose that liar's attacks. As the same posters have done for years - attacks will continue infinitely. Where is that manufacturer numeric spec that claims protection? Been asking those questions for years. Not once did any one provide those spec numbers. No plug-in protector claims protection in the spec numbers.
Where are those spec numbers that list each type of surge and protection from that surge? Never provided because it cannot exist. As the NIST said,

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which trader must misrepresent to post more accusations. Where is that numeric spec that provides protection? He never posts specifications - only nasty attacks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

So your "responsible" companies aren't responsible at all.

Poor w doesn't even know what he writes: "A protector is only as effective as its earth ground" "No earth ground means no effective protection."

The NIST called them effective: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

Where does Polyphaser says anything about plug-in suppressors.
But those who use education and science learn from responsible companies such as SquareD (for their best service panel suppressor): "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"
SquareD is a truly "responsible" company because it does not make plug-in suppressors.

Who to believe - w, who after years still can't find a source that agrees with him that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Or the IEEE, the NIST, SquareD, and everyone else that say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Poor w is attacked by reality.

w will continue infinitely. His religious belief in earthing has been challenged and there are cracks developing in his universe.

Posted for years and always ignored by w: http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q 70++joules+author %3Abud--&btnG=Search&sitesearch[recombine to one line]
And posted by others and ignored.
Just like they will be ignored by w now.
Just like w ignores everything that does not fit his little world.

Complete idiocy. A 10 year old could find them.

Where are those spec numbers that list "each type of surge" from "responsible" company SquareD? Missing - because each type of surge is just another piece of bullcrap from w. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That covers all possible combinations and all possible surges.

Still never explained - why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)? Why no explanation w??? Is there a massive coverup of all the crashes???
Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still never answered - 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, pdf 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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors? - Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? Why can't you answer simple questions w???
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

Not provided - quote or context.
As can be seen from other quotes from w, he completely twists what sources says.
Service panel suppressors are a good idea. But repeating from the NIST guide: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."
Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltages from developing between power and signal wires.

More complete idiocy. Cite a source. (Hallucinations don't count.)

Continued idiocy.

w is unable 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 w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

If you count light bulbs as appliances.

Continued idiocy.
But SquareD, for their best service panel suppressor, says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".

I recently bought a major brand plug-in suppressor with ratings of 590J and 30,000A per MOV, 1770J and 90,000A total. Provide a source for a 30,000A/590J MOV for ten cents.
You forgot "a protector is only as effective as its earth ground." Are you feeling OK?
Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still never answered - simple questions: Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)? - 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, pdf 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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors? - Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? Why can't you answer simple questions w???
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

I don't ever say that, but the village idiot just can't understand. To poor w it is "magic".
As clearly explained in the IEEE guide, plug-in suppressors work primarily by limiting the voltage on all wires to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage between wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment. The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere. Because that violates w's religious belief in earthing his religious blinders filter out the words.
For power service wires, any surge energy on the neutral is directly earthed by the required N-G-earthing electrode bond in all US services. If there is a large surge on hot wires, at about 6,000V there is arc-over from service panel buses to the enclosure, which is connected to the earthing electrode. After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of volts. That dumps most of the surge energy to earth. This has been explained numerous times but is filtered off by poor w's religious blinders.
Martzloff (who was the NIST surge guru) has a technical paper that looks at the energy that reaches the MOV in a plug-in suppressor. Even with the maximum probable surge on power wires the energy is 35J or less. In most cases it was 1J or less. The reason is arc-over, above. Also that a surge is, by definition, a very short event. That means the current components are relatively high frequency. So the inductance of the branch circuit wires is more important than the resistance. The impedance of the wire is to high to allow much energy reach the plug-in suppressor. This has also often been explained, but the village idiot just ignores it.
Just as I wrote in my last post - "where the energy goes has often been explained (including previously in this thread) but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating." Poor w just keeps repeating his lies.

And poor w still can't read what the NIST guide says about plug-in suppressors: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

This is exactly the paper I cited in my previous post - w's religious blinders prevent him from reading anything that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.
At the time of the 1994 paper "multiport" surge suppressors were just a concept or very new. The *whole point* of the paper was that multiport suppressors are effective.
w always ignores that Martzloff said in the paper: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
On alt.engineering.electrical, w similarly misconstrued the views of Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff coauthor, and provoked a response from an electrical engineer: "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."
And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors are effective.

"Layers of protection" are described by Martzloff: "Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive appliances [electronic equipment] within the house."

w's religious mantra protects him from evil thoughts (aka. reality).
Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn't anyone in the known universe agree with you w???
Still never answered - 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, pdf 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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors? - Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? Why can't you answer simple questions w???
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Idiot 'w' thinks his boat will sinks the first time a wave hits.
<snipped stuff 'w' will never understand>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

We can only hope that he's right about that. :)
--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From Dr Ronald B Standler in his book "Protection of Electronic Circuits from Overvoltages":

Longitudinal is also called common-mode. Maybe Dr Standler should consult you? Myths must be better information. Grounding is not necessary for effective protection? Plug-in protectors without ground are effective because retail salesmen and hearsay says so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I finally got an installation manual from Leviton for the the meter housing unit. It is only rated fror 200 amps IF it is installed in a specific Murray housing. I went out and checked, and our housing isn't a Murray. I also studied my meter, and it is one of the new electronic remote read units. It fills up inside of the clear cover much more than an old fashioned meter, and I doubt it would work with the Leviton even if we had the right housing.
So, I'm back to finding a good unit to attach to the breaker panel. It's too bad, because the earth ground has a more direct connection to the meter box than to the breaker panel.
Doug White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.