Please Help diagnosing Garage Door Opener problem!

[w_tom]

Bud would reargue a previous and long discussion in sci.electronic.repair where numerous citations were provided - where even his own citations disagreed with what he posts here. Papers even from his cited authors suggest how plug-in protectors can contribute to damage of adjacent electronics:

Same author describes a superior protection 'system':

From IEEE Green Book:

An industry benchmark is Polyphaser:

IEEE Red Book (Std 141) also recommends protection:

In each case, protection is not defined by a plug-in protector. Protection is defined by an earthing system. What do plug-in protectors not connect directly to AND therefore what does its manufacturer avoid discussing? Earthing. When selling ineffective plug-in protectors - missing a dedicated earthing connection - then manufacturer pretends earthing is irrelevant. Reality: a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Connections to earthing also define quality of that earthing. Again from Polyphaser:

Point one made by Montandon and Rubinstein in their 4 Nov 1998 IEEE paper:

Above are samples from a very l> Still at it?

- this a paper you originally provided a link to

[Bud--]

The IEEE paper referenced in my last post clearly recommends plug-in surge suppresors. The same paper very clearly explains how some plug-in protectors, 'surge reference equalizers', avoid the problem of "contribute to damage". Perhaps it would help if you would read the IEEE paper.

A second reference is

this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home"

- it is published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the US government agency formerly called the Bureau of Standards

- it was published in 2001 and aimed at the general public to explain surges and how to protect against them

- it was writen by your favorite - Francois Martzloff - the NIST guru on surges and lightning

- it clearly recommends plug-in surge protectors

Is utter crap. Anyone with an elementary ability to read can read both papers and see both the IEEE and NIST references recommend plug-in surge suppressors. I "reargue" only because of your persistence in denying accepted scientific advice.

I note that, as always, you change the subject, and provide no links that say plug-in surge suppressors don't work. Why?

Are the IEEE and NIST wrong in recommending plug-in surge protectors? Can you get past your deeply held 'religous' views and see what these papers are really saying? Are you smarter than the IEEE, the NIST and Francois Martzloff?

bud--

[w_tom]

What was demonstrated in sci.electronics.repair? How a plug-in protector provided a transient with destructive paths through electronics. This even demonstrated in your cited IEEE paper (Fig 8/9) with two TVs at 8000 volts. Somehow that 8000 volts will not leak to earth using destructive paths? Only in theory. Reality - the room was not specially constructed; so 8000 volts does find destructive paths through electronics.

The OP was using plug-in protectors and yet suffered damage. Of course. No earth ground means no effective protection. But then all this was presented in

.

The only thing that is "utter crap" is your lack of experience with effective protection AND your repeated recommendations to spend so much money (tens of times more money per protected appliance) on ineffective solutions. Good money is better spent on upgrading a building's earthing AND installing a properly earthed 'whole house' solution. Effective solutions - the secondary protection system - earths before transients enter a building. Effective solutions also inspect the primary protection system:

In each case, what is essential for protection solutions? Earthing. What is missing with plug-in protectors? Earthing. Why did those protectors permit household electronics damage? The plug-in manufacturer never mentions earthing and does not even claim in numerical specs to provide protection. Obviously. No earth ground means no effective protection. Ask your boss why your company specifications don't provide numbers that claim such protection.

Resp> The IEEE paper referenced in my last post clearly recommends plug-in

[Bud--]

The IEEE and NIST both say plug-in surge suppressors are effective. Just because you can't figure out how they work doesn't mean they aren't effective.

Apparently you don't understand the IEEE paper. It recommends plug-in surge suppressors.

But I can read. Francois Martzloff, your hero, has done extensive research on surge supression at the NIST and he recommends plug-in surge supressors. And the 5 electrical engineers who wrote the IEEE paper have extensive experience with "effective protection" and they recommend plug-in surge supressors.

Your religous views interfere with your ability to read and/or think. The IEEE and NIST papers were intended for wide distribution to explain surges and how to protect against them. They both recommend plug-in surge suppressors. (Other papers could also be cited.)

Are the IEEE and NIST wrong in recommending plug-in surge protectors? Can you get past your deeply held 'religous' views and see what these papers are really saying? Are you smarter than the IEEE, the NIST and Francois Martzloff?

bud--