Physics is included in warranties: All wires to a set of protected equipment must pass through a protector. Don't daisy-chain.
Both are basic requirements for how the protector is connected (physics). They are about the only requirements for hot equipment is connected in warranties I have seen.
All of which are common elements in the wiring and well understood. Daisy-chained protectors are a science experiment.
Which is engineered.
All common in protection. Except daisy-chaining. Which is why it voids warranties.
(and more than manufacturers.)
I originally made 2 major points:
- inductance is not required before MOVs to provide protection.
- the inductance between daisy-chained plug-in protectors can cause problems.
Inductance between MOVs in protectors was a subpoint under the first point. I don't really care if some engineered protectors have multiple sets of MOVs with inductance between. Inductors are not required for protection.
Still no response to one of several possible causes of damage from daisy-chaining.
It was dumb to have continued to use circuits for GDTs, which have different characteristics, and different requirements for full protection. Particularly when you had pix that did not use GDTs.
It is dumb to argue that series inductance in an engineered product is the same as random components that are daisy-chained.
You have no proof whatever as to why that is there. I've provided you with similar cites that say regular power strips without surge protection should not be daisy chained too, for obvious reasons.
Now you're lying again. All kinds of warranties on equipment have all kinds of requirements as to how it has to be connected and by whom for the warranty to be valid.
Then it's a science experiment with all the other unknown and uncontrollable factors in an installation.
You're learning. At first you denied that it existed because it was going to cause such catastrophe that no manufacturer would ever do that:
"Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
Doesn't matter what your original points were. You clearly stated:
"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.
Now you don't care, because your claim that it doesn't exist, proves you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to surge protector design and physics.
No one here ever said they were. But clearly some of the best ones include them.
Answered many times.
There you go again. You made the totally stupid claim:
"Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
Ralph gave you an EDN article that shows exactly that. The fact that the design example also uses GDT matters not a wit. It directly answered your challenge.
So did Polyphaser and Triplite. Now your bizare argument and insistance of excluding GDTs is like a defense attorney saying "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, forget about the eyewitness testimony that says my client did it. Focus instead on the the facts that my client's DNA, gun, and fingerprints are all over the crime scene. Great argument.
For someone who posted this:
"Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
You're clearly in no position to be calling anyone else dumb.
Answered many times, you just don't like the answer. I explained it to you. The inductance of 6 ft of additonal surge protector cord is just one more little bit of inductance in a world where you have
3 to 100+ ft of wire from the surge protector at the panel to the plug-ins, possibly inductors in the surge protector itself, inductance in the 3ft to 15 ft appliance cord, followed by MOVs inside. All that comes together in random configurations and is peachy keen. But OMG! The little inductance in another 6ft of cord suddenly is suddenly unpredictable "bad" inductance and a "science experiment"
So what. You never saw a surge protector with "Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. " "What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
That's been nicely smashed now, by EDN, Triplite, Polyphaser. And given that you believed those designs could not exist because of how inductance works, why the hell would anyone believe what else you have to say about the physics of inductance or surge protectors?
Just because *you* say inductors in surge protectors using GDTs along with MOVs isn't relevant doesn't make it so. You've been shown examples both with and without GDTs, so obviously it matters not a wit.
And your claim because you seem to want to forget it was:
"Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
The EDN article shows exactly that, a surge protector design with inductance between MOVs. You have Polyphase and Triplite without the GDTs. IT's clear the GDTs do not determine if an inductor can be used between sets of MOVs. All three do exactly that. All 3 are surge protectors and meet your challenge.
Now you're lying again. He never said any such think, AFAIK. What he said in response to your claim that having inductors between MOVs didn't exist was:
"Having MOVs in locations with impedance inbetween is the reason to do it. The first MOV takes part of the surge, if any reaches the next one, it then helps with the protection. The impedance slows the rise time of the surge and helps with the surpression. Some of the surge is dissapated in the inductance. "
THAT is exactly what the EDN article shows. It's exactly the design of the Polyphaser and Triplite products, which even you accept now.
"Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
That EDN article shows exactly that, inductors between MOVs. It's surge protector design. It meets the requirements of what you demanded.
But then we have Polyphased and Triplite designs without GDTs. So, clearly inductors can be used with or without GDTs. The fact that there are GDTs in the EDN article is irrelevant. But what is really dumb is you want to keep arguing about the EDN thing and ignore the fact that even without EDN, you were
100% WRONG.
Bud: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, forget about that EDN article. I don't want to hear anymore about it! Focus instead on Polyphaser and Triplite, both of which prove that what I said was 100% wrong and that i don't know what I'm talking about.
And I'm the stupid one?
Then feel free to apologize for calling me stupid and a dummy when I was right and what you posted:
"Manufacturers do not put inductance between MOVs. "
"What manufacturer intentionally adds inductance between paralleled MOVs?
was wrong and shows you don't know much about surge protector design.
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.