Whatever articles they are, they meet the challenge you posed which was to show surge protector designs that use MOVs that are deliberately separated by inductance.
You seem to want to have it both ways. First, having inductance due to wiring between a surge protector at the panel and one located by an appliance in the house is a good thing and even required in some cases. But then having another 3 or 6ft of wire inductance between that surge protector and a possible second one suddenly becomes a bad thing. Plus as has been noted, appliances have their own MOVs which are 6 ft down the cord too.
UL let thorough ratings are in gross steps - I think the bottom 2 are
330 and 400V. If a protector tests with 250 actual let through volts it has a UL rating of 330. If it tests with a let through voltage of 320 it also has a UL rating of 330V.
And even if you have 2 MOVs with the same part number from the same manufacturer the actual ratings can be quite different - they are not precision parts. (If a manufacturer wants to parallel them they should be matched - same manufacturing lot may be enough.)
If you parallel protectors with 6 ft of lead between you are setting up a science experiment with many unknown variables with an unknown time when the experiment will run.
So lets use 3 sets of MOVs with 2 sets of inductance in between. More unknown variables for the science experiment.
Manufacturers do not like this kind of science experiment and do not allow paralleling of plug-in protectors.
Actually engineered with inductance between MOVs. It is likely to be used by hams with antennas that are likely to be hit by lightning. Very high surge ratings. What a typical example.
Paging through it (without a magnifying glass) I saw 4.
2 uses GDTs - covered elsewhere
2 have no explanation where the circuit is from or of why inductance does anything useful
Was already posted by Ralph. "The circuits all use gas discharge tubes. Far as I know those are not used in the power circuits of plug-in protectors, and I haven't heard of them being used in power circuits of electronics. Gas discharge tubes have a short delay until they operate - the gas has to ionize. Inductors may or may not make sense with gas discharge tubes. The article is probably aimed at Europe."
If the protector is from a reputable company I don't. They want to protect their reputation.
Because the energy at a plug-in protector is small (covered elsewhere) failures are unlikely.
I have never heard that one. I have seen a couple complaints where the protector was not wired correctly (all wires to a set of protected equipment must pass through the protector), and that is likely the cause of most equipment damage. I suspect the manufacturers want to see damage within the protector to indicate a surge got through. They also want evidence that there was lightning (or another event).
The numbers quoted above are for 500A surge current, not 10k.
And it is not the path to ground (that is someone eases fetish). It is the path between H-N, H-G and N-G, which determines the effective clamp voltage between those wires.
Which greatly lowers the surge current that can reach the protectors. (Below 500A?)
Which can increase the clamping voltage seen at the protected load.
So use 3 sets of MOVs with 2 sets of inductance between.
Electronics is likely to only have a MOV from H-N with an unknown clamp voltage and lower surge amp rating.
Plug-in protectors are "Type 3 SPDs" and I believe testing is done with
10 ft of branch circuit wiring. I have seen a 10 ft requirement in Leviton literature. It may also be part of UL1449 3ed (2004).
Just like the experiment you have with a surge protector at the panel, followed by wire that could be anywhere from 2ft to a 100+ ft, followed by a plug-in surge protector, followed by 6 ft of cord, followed by the surge protectors in the appliance.
Per the above, similar to the science experiment you have with varying wire lengths, varying types of plug-in surge protectors, another unknown length of wire, then surge protectors in the appliance.
What manufacturers like or don't like doesn't change the physics.
Well, that's what you asked for, wasn't it? Surge protectors that had inductance designed in between two MOVs? The very inductance you said was a bad thing? Polyphaser has that design. It exists. QED
It is likely to be
Good grief. You asked for an example. I gave you one from polyphaser, a well respected manufacturer. Ralph and I showed you an EDN article that specifically shows inductors used between MOVs. Polyphaser has exactly that design. Now what's the problem? The Polyphaser is too good of a surge protector?
Also noted is that your position is kind of like John Kerry's I voted against the war after I voted for it. You claim that having a panel surge protector followed by who knows what length of wire, then who knows what kind of plug-ins is great because the inductance helps. But then if you put one set of MOVs after another separated by 3 or 6 ft of wire, that inductance is bad.
Ask Polyphaser. That'a about as real and credible as it gets. Even Wtom likes Polyphaser.
Assuming that's true, electrons work differently in Europe?
I've seen plenty of people report that they couldn't get a dime. These companies sell millions of units. Not paying off on a few thousand who actually put in a claim isn't going to amount to anything. And it's easy to do. The most frequent response I see people bitching about is that the company simply claims the surge exceeded the devices rating. How are you going to prove that it didn;t?
And how exactly does one prove to the manufacturer that you had it wired correctly? There are plenty of reports from people trying to get paid on these equipment claims and they get nowhere. Not hard to find.
I
Yeah, and then they say the lightning exceeded the rating of the device. Now what? Or they say they want the TV or whatever shipped to them for analysis. Are you gonna pay to ship a three year old TV that cost $500 to them, so they can examine it on the hope that they will pay off on it? And if they do, they typically pay the current value of the TV. What's the current market value of a 3 year old TV? So, you can spend a lot of time spinning wheels and *maybe* you get a pittance, if you're lucky.
Now you're lying. You asked for an example of a surge protector manufacturer that uses MOVs separated by inductance.
Here it is again:
formatting link
Polyphaser does exactly that. It's a plug-in type surge protector from a leading and respected manufacturer.
Ralph and I gave you the EDN article, that also shows inductance being used, but now you want to pretend that it can only be used if gas discharge tubes are included and that somehow that article applies to Europe? The article says nothing about any such restrictions. It's about surge protectors in general.
Here is a plug-in that obviously uses MOVs separated by inductors:
formatting link
It's obvious to any reasonable person looking at that photo that there is first one large set of MOVs on the line side, followed by inductors, then another smaller set by the load receptacles. It's obvious the second components are MOVs as they have thermal fuses right above them.
Here is another one:
formatting link
Again there are MOVs separated by inductors.
What problem? The fact that there are gas tubes in that one diagram doesn't change the fact that there are inductors there, with MOVs on either side. If inductance causes problems, then it's going to cause the same problems with or without the gas tubes.
Like I said, you want it both ways. Any voltage drop between the surge protectors is LESS voltage that will be across the protected load. Like those big honking inductors in the Polyphaser don't create major voltage drop from a surge? And in the case of "current limiting from the service panel to a plug-in", well that inductance also creates voltage drop and you're going to get a lot more drop from the impedance of a 50 ft run in a house then what you're going to get from a 6 ft surge protector cord.
And if that second surge protector with some MOVs creates a problem, how is it that the MOVs inside the appliance don't create the exact same problem with just one surge protector? They are MOVs separated from the first surge protector by a 6 ft cord with inductance.
Do try to follow the thread. My comment was to the circuits Ralph posted, one of which you duplicated.
Polyphaser was not one of them.
All Ralph's links, and the one you duplicated, use GDTs.
"Only be used if gas discharge tubes are included"? The circuit DOES use GDTs.
Maybe you could figure out the problems with using GDTs.
Arguments about circuits with GDTs are not relevant.
For the other circuits - yes, wonderful logic. If an engineered product uses inductance, a random assembly of parts will work as well as the engineered product.
My original point was that inductors are _not needed_ between MOVs. I doubt anyone here has a protector with inductors between 2 sets of MOVs in a single device.
And further that daisy-chaining protectors is not a good idea. I explained why.
And that inductors are not needed to slow the rise-time for MOVs. MOVs are faster than the surge. Inductors (or some other scheme) are needed for GDTs if you want to avoid a short gap of no protection.
The difference is rather obvious.
As I explained:
I explained how it can produce MORE voltage. That is why I don't recommend daisy-chaining them.
A random connection of parts will work the same as an engineered product?
Already explained. That is part of the protection with a plug-in protector and part how protection is provided.
Plug-in protectors limit the voltage from each wire to the common ground at the protector. Daisy-chaining you no longer have a single common ground point and may be introducing voltage drops that increase the voltage you would have with single protector.
Also covered.
- It is a necessary compromise.
- A circuit with 3 sets of MOVs and 2 sets of inductors has far more uncertainty.
- The specific example I gave involved a N-G MOV at the 2nd protector. Circuits I have seen have only 1 MOV in electronics, and it is H-N.
- MOVs in electronics are very unlikely to have ratings as high as in a plug-in protector. That means they don't clamp the voltage as well, and produce lower surge currents in the line cord.
Manufactures do not allow daisy-chaining protectors. Maybe they know more than you do.
You don't want to address polyphaser because it's exactly what you asked for, an example of a plug-in surge protector that uses MOVs separated by an inductor.
We know it uses GDTs. The point is they also use MOVs on either side of an inductor and the article doesn't say anything about being able to use inductors only if GDTs are present.
Apparently there is no problem as those design articles clearly show them being used by two of the best names in surge protection.
Total non-response to photos of two more plug-in surge protectors that use MOVs on either side of inductors noted. And those inductors have a hell of a lot more inductance than the small amount on a
6ft cord.
Why? Because you say so? Inductors still perform the same function with or without GDT. Show us a reference that says inductors can't be used with MOVs on each side without GDTs. You asked for a reference that shows MOVs being used on either side of an inductor. Ralph and I gave you that. Now you show us your reference that says that can only be done with GDT. Note that there is no evidence of GDTs in the photos I provided of those plug-ins.
Shift in goal posts noted. You issed the challenge to find a surge protector manufacturer that uses MOVs on either side of an inductor, claiming that adding inductance was dangerous. We've done that via EDN, Triplite, Polyphaser. And no one here, certainly not me, ever said that having two surge protectors daisy chained will work as well as one larger one. I've only said the physics don't support your claim of something bad or dangerous happening. For proof of that, I submit that you already have surge protection devices, of varying types, daisy chained. In the case that started this, the OP has a surge protector at the meter. He's going to have a plug-in one at the washer, after a run of unknown length of wire, with unknown inductance. Then the washer electronics is going to have it's own surge protectors at the end of a 6 ft cord. I don't see how all that is good and peachy keen, but from a physics standpoint, if he added another surge protector in series, suddenly all kinds of bad things are supposed to happen.
Take that up with Polyphaser and Triplite. Apparently they disagree because they clearly have exactly such a design in their more expensive surge protectors. That photo I provided is from one of the Triplite Isobar series, which is the product family the OP is looking at, so there is no reason that they don't exist and are in use. Whether anyone here specifically has one of course doesn't matter. I suspect if you opened up an assortment of $20 to $100 surge protectors you'd find a variety of design differences.
But the physics makes no sense. If the second surge protector is harmful, what about the surge protector in the appliance itself? Why is the inductance between the panel and the washer a good thing and the inductance between an inductors in the Polyphaser, Triplite a good thing, and the inductance between the plug-in and the washer at least OK, while the inductance of another
6ft surge protector cord is a bad thing?
Just because they are not needed that inductors are incompatible without GDTs. Apparently Polyphaser and Triplite agree because they have MOVs separated by inductors without GDTs.
Better take that up with Polyphaser and Triplite.
Shift in goal posts noted. Again the issue was not will it work as well, the issue was whether MOVs separated by inductance is a bad thing.
You already don't have a single ground point. The meter surge protector is grounded in one place, the surge protector by the washer is grounded at the end of 5 to a 100 ft of wire, the surge protector in the washer itself is grounded at the end of another 6 ft of washer cord.
So, you'd leave out the surge protectors in the appliance if you knew there was going to be a plug-in used? The rest of the world sees that as additional protection, not a "compromise".
Better open up your appliances and remove those extra MOVs then that compromise performance.
So, what, no one ever claimed otherwise.
Manufacturers also don't allow daisychaining regular power strips without surge protection in them, so I don't see how you can attribute it to the surge protection part. And I bet I can find wire-in type surge protectors that don't say anything about not daisy chaining them.
Try to follow what is said. As I already said, Ralph did not post anything about Polyphaser.
I responded to Polyphaser where it was brought up.
A swell idea. If a circuit has components you don't want to use just remove them. The circuit will doubtlessly work the same without them. I'll bet you learned that in school.
Those articles were Littelfuse and EETimes. They are the "best names in surge protection"? Design techniques for using GDTs are the same as for design techniques not using GDTs?
Try to follow what is said. I answered it below - "for the other circuits".
Your argument that design is the same with or without GDTs is a stupid one. Perhaps you could use more useful arguments. Remaining GDT stuff deleted.
A more useful argument, which I responded to.
The original goal posts were that MOVs do not need inductance to protect, and the inductance between daisy-chained protectors can cause problems.
Inductance in engineered products is a side issue.
You ignored my explanation of just one of the possible problems.
I don't remember Polyphaser or Triplite saying protection required sets of MOVs separated by inductance.
Certainly does. You ignored my explanation (which was for of several possible combinations in this science experiment.)
Already covered.
Surely you are not dumb enough to not know the difference.
In an engineered product?
Yawn, already covered.
Yawn, also already covered. (And ignored)
Polyphaser and Triplite recommend daisy-chaining their protectors?
The original issue was inductance before MOVs is not necessary, and between plug-in protectors can cause problems.
And question ignored.
And explanation ignored.
Figure out how plug-n protectors work. They limit the voltage from each wire to the ground at the protector. The ground at the service is irrelevant.
(43rd repetition) already covered.
Another great idea - different electronics for plug-in protector and not-plug-in protector.
The rest of the world doesn't have a clue what the issues are.
Irrelevant to what I wrote. The potential problem is daisy-chaining.
A non-response.
I have never seen instruction for plug strips say you can't daisy-chain them.
The instructions for plug-in protectors with warranties I have read prohibit daisy-chaining. I agree with the manufacturers.
Warranties that are typical of many manufacturers have plenty of terms that give them plenty of reasons to not honor the warranty. From the stories I've read online, the two classic responses are:
1 - We only pay for the protected eqpt if the surge protector show signs of damage from a surge and your surge protector shows no such damage.
2 - Your surge protector was damaged by a surge that exceeded it's specification, so we won't pay.
Another tactic is to require you to file a claim with your own homeowner's insurance. More BS, because homeowner's insurance typically isn't going to cover a $500 TV, but the insurance company may raise your rates. Would you put in a claim for a three year old TV that cost $500? But that's what they want you to do, one more hoop to make you go away. And then if you're lucky and jump through all the hoops, they give you $100.
That's precisely part of the whole point, that it's often not practical or impossible to "prove" the claim. Some of the warranties include that the investigation includes you shipping the damaged TV to them for analysis. How practical is that for the typical claim?
It means every surge protector has a maximum rating and if the one you sent back has blown up components, then they can say the surge exceeded the max rating and the claim is denied. And as you pointed out, the catch 22 is that they can also deny it if there is no evidence of a surge damaging the protector. So, it has to be like Goldy Locks. If they say that the surge is too big or didn't exist, then they don't pay.
I wouldn't have collision insurance on a 1986 Ford for two reasons. First, financially, the cost of the insurance makes no sense. If you had $3000 worth of damage, they will pay you the book value of the car, $500. The other reason applies to the surge protector warranties. The hoops you'd have to go through to collect and what you *might* get if it;s decided in your favor, means in many cases, it's not practical and I would not rely on collecting a dime.
A protected eqot warranty or lack thereof wouldn't make much of a difference to me. And I sure wouldn't have much faith that I would ever be able to collect anything on one that did.
Yeah, you dismissed it as irrelevant, saying it looks like something that would be used by hams to protect an antenna. Good grief. It's a plug-in surge protector and a very good one at that.
Tell that to Triplite, I've given you two photos of their products that show exactly that, no GDTs. And the circuit will work without them, the physics don't change.
Polyphaser and Triplite. Do try to pay attention. And before running down Ralph's sources or my sources, where are your sources that say you can't use an inductor with MOVs unless it includes GDTs? Cite please.
Yes, they follow the same engineering principles. Just ask Triplite, Polyphaser. I gave you the photos showing their units that clearly have two sets of MOVs separated by an inductor.
Other circuits? You have photographs in front of you that show what you claimed is dangerous and could not exist. Surge protectors with two sets of MOVs separated by an inductor.
Now because I've got photo proof that shows what Ralph and I are saying, you're going to start calling me names. Look at the photos.
You didn't respond, you ignored it. It's not just a useful argument, it clearly demolishes your BS. You issued a challenge to show a surge suppressor design that uses MOVs separated by an inductor. You now have Polyphaser and Triplite, but you still won't admit they exist and you're wrong.
Yes and Ralph smashed that nicely. So did Polyphaser and Triplite. If inductance causes problems, better call them up and tell them to take it out.
But wait. Inductance only causes problems if you say so. The inductance between the panel and 3 to 100 ft of wire is a good thing. The photos of Triplite, Polyphaser show they put inductors in their surge protectors. So, apparently that inductance is cool too or if not you should call them up. And the inductance between the MOVs in a plug-in surge protector and the MOVs inside an appliance, ie the 6ft cord, that's cool too. But, OMG! If anyone ever daisychained one surge protector with another with a 6 ft cord, that inductance is gonna cause all kinds of bad things. Go figure.
Only because it demolishes your BS position. And you made it one of the issues. You issued a challenge, that inductance was so dangerous that we wouldn't be able to find a design that uses inductance. Polyphaser, Triplite and the EDN article smashed that. So now the new goal post is that suddenly "designed-in" inductance is good, not designed in is bad. Except of course that you've flip-flopping all over on that one too. The unknown inductance of 3 ft to 100ft+ of wire between a panel and a plug-in, well that's back to "good" inductance. Some physics.
So did EDN, Polyphaser and Triplite. Take it up with them.
Another attempt at moving the goal posts noted. The point wasn't that they said it was required. The point is that they have products that use a design that you issued a challenge to find, because you thought it didn't exist.
Take it up with EDN, Polyphaser, Triplite. And your cites, besides your flapping gums would be?
Yes, it's already covered. You have no answer. "It's a compromise" Cite for that please.
For someone who claimed no surge protectors use MOVS separated by an inductor, who has been provided with designs from Polyphaser and Triplite, are you sure you want to start calling others dumb?
Yes, you ignore, EDN, Polyphaser, Triplite, everything and anything that shows you're wrong.
They have the design that you claimed didn't exist because it's dangerous, MOVs separated by an inductor. Go look and learn.
Yes, that magical inductance. Between the panel and the plug-in, the unknown inductance of the 3ft to 100ft+ of wire, that's the good kind. The inductance in the Polyphaser, Triplite, EDN, that inductance was bad, before you knew those designs existed. Now that they exist, well that inductance became good inductance too, because it's "designed in". The inductance in the 6 ft cord between a plug-in and the washer, that's good inductance too, I guess. But, OMG. If you had a second surge protector with another 6 ft of cord, THAT inductance is the *bad* kind.
I should figure it out? You claimed that daisy chaining a surge protector means you no longer have a single point ground. The ground at the service is not irrelevant, because it's already a different ground point than the plug-in. The MOVs at the washer are also at a different ground point. So, what's your point?
I'm just trying to find out what it is you want. When I pointed out that MOVs inside the appliance are in fact MOVs separated by the inductance of the appliance cord from the plug-in surge protector MOVs, you said those MOVs inside the appliance were a "compromise". So, I'm just trying to figure out when we'd be better off without them. If a second surge protector is bad, then those should be bad too and I'm just asking if you knew that there was going to be an external plug-in surge protector, would you leave out the appliance ones for better protection?
Oh, I see. Now EDN, Polyphaser, Triplite and all the appiance manufacturers don't have a clue about your world of "good inductance" and bad inductance. Maybe you can explain it to them.
Whatver physics issues daisychaining has, a plug-in surge protector followed by the MOVs inside the appliance has the same potential problem. Better take them out.
It is a direct response. IDK what point you're making. Smaller MOVs are better now?
So drop your arguments about the circuits with GDTs and talk about Triplite (Which I have already suggested). (And the design considerations certainly do change.)
They did not write the cited articles. Litelfuse and EETimes did.. Perhaps you could drop the GDT stuff and stick to Polyphaser and Triplite.
Do try to pay attention. Make arguments relevant to what is in the preceding thread.
I never said you couldn't. I said it was not necessary. Do try to pay attention.
I said inductors in a protector are not necessary for protection. Do try to pay attention.
Ralph had GDTs. Pictures did not. Do try to pay attention.
I said inductors are not necessary. And inductance between daisy-chained protectors can cause problems. Do try to pay attention.
So drop your arguments about the circuits with GDTs and talk about Triplite. (And circuit considerations for GDTs are certainly different than for just MOVs.)
They did not write the cited articles. Litelfuse and EETimes did. Perhaps you could drop the GDT stuff and stick to Polyphaser and Triplite.
Do try to pay attention. Make arguments relevant to what is in the preceding thread.
I never said you couldn't. I said it was not necessary. Do try to pay attention.
I said inductors in a protector are not necessary for protection. Do try to pay attention.
Ralph had GDTs. Pictures did not. Do try to pay attention.
I said inductors before MOVs are not necessary. And inductance between daisy-chained protectors can cause problems. Do try to pay attention.
I said inductors in front of MOVs are not necessary. Do try to pay attention
Which of them allows protectors to be daisy-chained? Do try to pay attention.
Which of them allows protectors to be daisy-chained? Do try to pay attention.
I gave you a way protection could be compromised with daisy-chained protectors. You have never responded. It is one of several possible problems.
I said inductors are not necessary. Do try to pay attention.
You are dumb enough to not know how the inductance from the panel to a protector is much different?
Polyhaser and Triplite allow their protectors to be daisy chained?
And I said what some of the differences are - to which you did not respond in a meaningful way. Just like you have had no response to just one of the damaging interactions I explained for daisy-chained protectors
The point is clear with minimal understanding of surge protection.
Manufactures do not allow daisy-chaining protectors. Daisy chaining explicitly voids any warranty I have read.
So drop your arguments about the circuits with GDTs and talk about Triplite. (And circuit considerations for GDTs are certainly different than for just MOVs.)
They did not write the cited articles. Litelfuse and EETimes did. Perhaps you could drop the GDT stuff and stick to Polyphaser and Triplite.
Do try to pay attention. Make arguments relevant to what is in the preceding thread.
I never said you couldn't. I said it was not necessary. Do try to pay attention.
I said inductors in a protector are not necessary for protection. Do try to pay attention.
Ralph had GDTs. Pictures did not. Do try to pay attention.
I said inductors before MOVs are not necessary. And inductance between daisy-chained protectors can cause problems. Do try to pay attention.
I said inductors in front of MOVs are not necessary. Do try to pay attention
Which of them allows protectors to be daisy-chained? Do try to pay attention.
Which of them allows protectors to be daisy-chained? Do try to pay attention.
I gave you a way protection could be compromised with daisy-chained protectors. You have never responded. It is one of several possible problems.
I said inductors are not necessary. Do try to pay attention.
You are dumb enough to not know how the inductance from the panel to a protector is much different?
Polyhaser and Triplite allow their protectors to be daisy chained?
And I said what some of the differences are - to which you did not respond in a meaningful way. Just like you have had no response to just one of the damaging interactions I explained for daisy-chained protectors
The point is clear with minimal understanding of surge protection.
Manufactures do not allow daisy-chaining protectors. Daisy chaining explicitly voids any warranty I have read.
I don't see a problems with that. I don't know of another way manufacturers can determine damage was actually due to a protector problem.
Looking at many threads on surge protection I have never seen that, and I have major doubts.
But suppose a MOV exceeded its ratings. The normal failure mode is to conduct at normal voltages causing heat (which will be after the surge is over). Thermal protectors, included in UL 1449 listed protectors since at least 1998, disconnect the overheating MOV.
The IEEE surge guide goes on at length that the protected equipment can be connected across the incoming line, or across the MOV. In the second case, disconnecting a failed MOV also disconnects the protected equipment and it is not exposed. According to the IEEE surge guide, UL now requires that protectors that do not disconnect the protected equipment be labeled as such.
I expect that all protectors with warranties disconnect the protected equipment, so MOV failure should not be an issue.
And I really think companies like SquareD and Leviton will honor warranties.
No need to drop arguments about the circuits with GDTs because they are valid. The physics of the inductors are the same.
The articles are just additional evidence. If we just stick to Polyphaser and Triplite, you're still dead wrong. Feel free to admit it at any time. Your position is like a defense attorney saying "drop the eye witness stuff". Just stick to the facts that my client's DNA and fingerprints are all over the crime scene.
Again you want to have it both ways. First it's that the schematics that show inductors, movs and GDTs, well they shouldn't be talked about because they use GDTs. The obvious implication there is that you're saying that designs without the GDTs are no good, can't exist, etc. Otherwise, stop bitching about the fact that the GDTs are there if you agree it's possible to have circuits both with and without.
This is what you said:
"Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
The articles provided by Ralph and the actual surge protector designs of Polyphaser and Triplite show you're wrong, because they have exactly that, inductance intentionally added between MOVs.
Do try to pay attention.
Which shows inductors used with two sets of MOVs in surge protectors both with and without GDTs. The GDTs are not the issue, though you continue to try to make it so.
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
The articles provided by Ralph and the actual surge protector designs of Polyphaser and Triplite show you're wrong, because they have exactly that, inductance intentionally added between MOVs.
Perhaps you should pay attenti "Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
And having been proven wrong, by those articles, Polyphaser, Triplite, you then call me dumb and stupid? Good grief!
Defense attorney: "Lady's and gentlemen of the jury, disregard the eyewitness testimony about my client. Instead, focus on the facts that my clients DNA, fingerprints and gun were found at the crime scene." Great argument.
Now you're ly "Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
The articles provided by Ralph and the actual surge protector designs of Polyphaser and Triplite show you're wrong, because they have exactly that, inductance intentionally added between MOVs.
You're not only wrong, but a liar, and I'm the one that's supposed to be dumb? How dumb is it to lie when your own words are right here in the thread for everyone to see.
As for the inductance, there is inductance everywhere. But in your world the inductance from 3 ft to 100+ ft of wire from the panel is "good" inductance. The inductance inside a surge protector first didn't exist because it was "bad" inductance. Your exact words:
""Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. " "What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
Then when shown the EDN article, Polyphaser, Triplite surge protectors that clearly have inductance, then the inductance became "good" inductance. The 6 ft of inductance in the appliance cord is apparently "good" inductance too, or at least acceptable inductance. But OMG, the inductance in another 6 ft of surge protector cord,
*that* is "bad" inductance.
No one here ever said they did. You're not supposed to daisy chain ordinary power strips that have no surge protection either.
I did respond in a meaningful way. The inductance in 6 ft of cord between two plug-ins isn't any different than the inductance between one plug in and the MOVs inside an appliance. There is also going to be inductance between MOVs at the panel and MOVs at a plug-in. Two clear examples of where inductance between MOVs isn't causing disasters.
Good grief, how would they even know?
Daisy chaining of ordinary power strips without surge protection is not allowed either:
So what. I already told you I've seen lots of reports where people couldn't collect on their "protected eqpt warranties", where manufacturer's use any excuse they can come up with. That's one more way of denying a claim. Warranties physics.
Then they should be horrified that is exactly what exists in every installation anyway. You can have MOVs at the meter, panel, plug-ins, and then appliances have them too. All those are separated by the inductance of varying lengths of wire. Some of those plug-ins have built-in inductance too. And the overall above mix is random.
Another cheap shot. I apparently know more than you:
Bud:
"Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
As I've explained 10 times now, the articles provided by Ralph and the actual surge protector designs of Polyphaser and Triplite show you're wrong, because they have exactly that, inductance intentionally added between MOVs.
Now would be a good time to apologize for calling me stupid, dumb, etc.
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.