in wall timer wiring

Page 2 of 2  
On 3/6/2012 5:31 PM, westom wrote:

Direct lightning strikes to a house certainly requires lightning rods for protection. Westom could use language that says what he intended by "direct lightning strikes".

Westom has problems with hallucinations. I agree with trader.

The IEEE surge guide starts at 20kA. It depends on what the risk is.
One of the plug-in protectors I am using has 3 MOVs each rated 590J, 30,000A. That is 90,000 surge amps total, and higher than westom's 50,000A.
There is no possibility of getting anything anywhere near that on a branch circuit. The high surge amp rating just goes with the high joule rating. That means it will have a very long life. I don't expect it will ever fail. (That is one reason why some manufacturers can have protected equipment warranties.)
I am waiting, with trader, for a link to a 50,000A surge protector at HD and Lowes for under $50. I have been waiting for years.

What does the NIST surge guide really say about plug-in protectors? They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
Westom's blinders block anything that does not agree with his limited view of protection.

Since the timer connects only to power wires it is very likely a service panel protector will protect it.
A service panel protector does not necessarily protect equipment connected to both power and phone/cable/... wiring. A service panel protector does not limit the voltage between power and signal wires, which the NIST surge guide suggests is the major cause of equipment failure.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in protectors are effective.
Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors are NOT effective. There are none.
--
bud--



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

Bud will post insults to protect his income. He does this for almost a decade. His job is to promote protectors that are profit centers. He is paid to be posting here.
If Bud's protector did anything useful, then bud could post spec numbers that claim that protection. He cannot. No such specification numbers exist. For almost a decade, bud has been challenged to post those spec numbers. He never once did. Instead he routinely posts personal attacks in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh.
What good is a plug-in protector for an electronic timer switch in the wall? Useless. He does not sell products to provide that protection. He is only here because realities of his scam products must not be learned. His products even create fires if a 'whole house' protector is not properly earthed.
His citations describe the many completely different types of protectors. Then discusses why protectors adjacent to electronics are "useless".

Useless as in a missing low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to earth.
Page 42 figure 8 shows his products earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Why? Because the protector is too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. It can make appliance damage easier. Page 42 figure 8 from the IEEE.
Plug-in protectors without a 'whole house' protector mean virtually no protection. If you learn that, then bud's income is harmed. So nasty bud will post insults here repeatedly. It is his job. As a sales promoter, he will even deny he is paid to post myths and lies.
Meanwhile, an informed homeowner earths one 'whole house' protector rated at least 50,000 amps to protect everything including that electronic timer switch. As both the NIST and IEEE note in bud's citations, one 'whole house' protector is the well prove solution. It costs less money. Superior solutions need not pay for nasty sales promoters such as bud.
Informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector, rated at least 50,000 amps, so that electronic timer switches are protected. That is the only solution for in-wall timer switches. If your electrician is so ill informed as to install a grossly undersized 20,000 amp 'whole house' protector, then find an electrically informed electrician.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/7/2012 11:08 AM, westom wrote:

1. If westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie. The only association I have with the surge protection industry is I am using some protectors.
2. Westom is insulted by the IEEE and NIST. That is where most of the information I post comes from.
3. I didn't first see westom anywhere near 10 years ago.
4. I am a regular participant in this newsgroup. Westom showed up because micky said the magic word - "surge".
5. Westom has been posting this crap for 10 years?

It is one of westom's favorite lies.
If westom had half a brain he could find specs. A 10 year old could find specs.
I have posted specs many times. Other people have posted specs. They are always ignored by westom.
I posted specs in this thread which westom ignored, as always.

Before westom showed up almost all the discussion was about service panel protectors. I said a service panel protector would protect the timer and provided recommended ratings from the IEEE.
But westom had to insert his favorite belief that plug-in protectors do not work.

1. They are not my products.
2. " 'Whole house' protector is not properly earthed"?
3. Since 1998 UL has required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs. But with no valid technical arguments westom all westom has are scare tactics.

Repeating what the NIST surge guide really says about plug-in protectors: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector.
And the guides take a lot of space to "describe the many completely different types of protectors" that don't work?

If poor westom had half a brain he could figure out what IEEE guide says in this example of how plug-in protectors work:
- A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it. - "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." - In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector." - westom's favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO protection.
It is simply a lie that the plug-in protector in the IEEE example damages the second TV.

Drugs can control your delusions. Consult your doctor.

Repeating from the NIST surge guide: A service panel protector is a real good idea. But what does the NIST surge guide say? "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."

The 20kA figure comes from a range of values in the IEEE surge guide. Of course westom is much smarter than the IEEE.
Westom says plug-in protectors do not work.
Simple questions westom has never answered: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in protectors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector? - How would a service panel protector 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 do westom's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in protectors? - Why does "responsible manufacturer" SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.
--
bud--




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

You probably did (I have for at *least* that long). He used to post under the nym (w_tom).

Yep. He does a web search for "surge suppressor" and pounces on any such mutterings.

More than.

Key words: one of

He can't, unsurprisingly.

Which, of course, is a lie.
Give it up and killfile little 'w'.
<...>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/7/2012 1:31 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Yea - I certainly remember w_tom.
I remember one of the first times I saw w_tom. It was at alt.engineering.electrical. I know the date of the thread - it was nowhere near 10 years ago.
I learned a lot about surge protection since that thread. Westom is way further off than I thought then.

Googling for ["westom" surge] returns 20,000 hits. There will be more under w_tom. And probably more under google groups that are not in a google search.
Mormon missionaries are not that nuts.

I think that is right. It is like he has mental blinders that severely limit what he sees. He looks at the surge guides and only see what reinforces his beliefs. Some of what he sees is not actually there.

That leaves his techno-babble to sucker unsuspecting victims. Who would expect there is an internet nut spreading blatantly false information about surge protection.
Besides, it is like pulling the wings off a butterfly.
--
bud--

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

Good example of the hallucinations. We've all seen Bud posting here for years on all kinds of topics with excellent information and credibility. You on the other hand magically appear only when a post happens to contain the words "surge protector" to begin your rant.

A - Bud doesn't make or sell protectors.
B - There are scores of surge protector data sheets online with specs which anyone who wants to look can find.
C - Rush has nothing to do with this.

Another strawman or hallucination. Neither Bud nor anyone else here suggested using a plug-in to protect an electronic timer switch that is mounted in the wall. In fact, Bud specifically said a whole house protector would protect that wall timer.

Definitely hallucinations.

I've read the IEEE recommendations cited and they recommend using plug-in surge protectors as part of a protection strategy. The real question is, where are YOUR citations?

Oh, finally a citation, except that it's a total lie. That diagram shows two TVs. TV1 uses a plug-in surge protector through which the AC and cable lines pass. It is protected and undamaged by the surge. The TV that is damaged is the other one that has NO plug-in surge protector. The IEEE states:
"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2."

I call BS on you and everyone who has seen me post here over the years knows that like Bud, I'm not selling anything either.

Better take that up with the folks on your list of "responsible surge protector manufacturers". I just installed an Intermatic that's rated at 20,000 amps. I sleep well at night and so does Intermatic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/6/2012 10:05 AM, westom wrote:

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at: <http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf - "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and communication circuits" . And also: <http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf> - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home"

Complete nonsense.

A service panel protector is a real good idea. But what does the NIST surge guide say? "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."
That is because a service panel protector does not limit the voltage between power and phone/cable/... wires. The NIST surge guide suggests that most equipment damage is from high voltage between power and signal wires.
A service panel protector will very likely to protect equipment connected only to power wires.

If westom could only read.... For instance westom's "responsible companies" below.

Hundreds of thousands of joules can not make it into a house. At about 6,000V there is arc-over from the service panel busbars to the enclosure. After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of volts. Since the enclosure connects to the earthing system that dumps most of the surge to earth even with no surge protectors.
The amount of energy that can make it to a plug-in protector is surprisingly small, even with a very near very strong lightning strike. In a study by the author of the NIST surge guide the maximum was 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less. Plug in protectors connected correctly and with high ratings are very likely to protect from even a very near very strong lightning strike.

All these "responsible companies" except SquareD and Polyphaser make plug-in protectors and say they are effective. SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use."
Why would westom's "responsible companies" make plug-in protectors that westom says don't work?

Everyone is in favor of earthing. But it is westom's fetish. He believes that plug-in protectors can not possibly work because they are not well earthed. He googles for "surge" in his crusade to eliminate the scourge of plug-in protectors. He is worse than a mormon missionary.

The worst case surge is 10,000A per service wire (referenced in the IEEE surge guide). Lets see ... 2 x 10,000 = ... um ... someone help me out.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both have excellent information. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.
The read westom's sources. There are none.
--
bud--


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

Doesn't sound like it works the way I'd expect either. I'd keep after their tech support and see what they have to say.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 05:47:11 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

I gave up on their support. I even left a support question on their website and never got any reply. Anyway the document I found on line answered the question and since I couldn't get it to work until I followed the document's instructions, satisfies me that it has to be wired at the hot end. Unfortunately in this case, I wish it was otherwise but no choice unless I want to rewire my home for that circuit and I do not wish to do that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Some times there is no neutral wire. Then it's an advantage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some of them can pickup power through the attached light bulb. As others have pointed out they quit working if its a single bulb and it blows. I have one of that type of timers on an outdoor light circuit and that's not a problem for me as there are three lights on it. But it won't work if I put compact florescents in.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Plug a 7W night light into the circuit. That's probably enough current to get the switch to work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.