How many of those systems had internal modems (some internal device connected to a phoneline)?
And don't use internal modems.
Yes, although wireless does have other significant disadvantages (slower, less reliable, less secure... etc...).
>
Isn't "dielectric grease" an *insulator? Wouldn't it be contraindicated for use with outlets?
Some kind of conductive grease/lubricant would seem to be a better choice. Or am I posting too late at night?
PB
That's a common misconception, based on the average 30,000 amp estimate of a lightning strike and trying to figure wire size.
But it's not a steady state current. It's a sharply dampled sinusoid, and #10 wire is more than adequate for any expected strike. Here in Europe everybody uses 3/8 inch solid rod (or metric equivalent) but it is no more protective.
Now review that NIST discussion. What does a protector do? Page 8 of 24:
Where does that UPS 'divert' a surge to. Effective protectors are located where wires enter the building. Your computer already has significant internal protection. Anything a plug-in protector might do is already inside that computer. Internal protection was overwhelmed because you let a surge enter the building. Now that UPS will somehow stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? Of course not. That also is not what the NIST says effective protectors do.
Your phone line must already have a 'whole house' protector installed free by the telco. Your cable needs no protector because it can be earthed without any protector. Inspect both. Do they make the also required 'less than 10 foot' connection to a common earthing electrode?
Your cable company will even recommend removing plug-in protectors or a UPS on their cable. Cable for protection is earthed where it enters the building. That protector will only degrade cable signals - provide no effective protection. In each case, what defines protection? The NIST document says an effective protector *diverts* to earth ground.
Well that UPS has maybe a paltry 300 joules. That is near zero. But near zero protection is enough to claim "IT CONTAINS PROTECTION FROM DIRECT LIGHTNING STRIKES". Myths like this are widespread and encouraged routinely by Bud.
Meanwhile, what is the most common source of surge damage? Incoming on AC mains. Wires that are most exposed at the street. Just like lightning striking antennas atop the Empire State Building, your AC wires carry a direct lightning strike into the motherboard. This because the surge was not earth where it entered the building - at the circuit breaker box.
That box already should contain a 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection. If not, then a new earthing electrode must be installed to meet post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. No earth ground means ... well what does the NIST say? It *diverts* a surge to earth ground. And you have no (insufficient) earthing? What defines an effective protector? Its earthing. Where is the surge energy dissipated? In earth. Will a protector or UPS absorb that energy that 3 miles of sky could not stop? Of course not. Only place that surge energy gets harmlessly dissipated is in earth.
Install only one 'whole house' protector on AC mains with that short connection to earth. Massively less money and protection that actually can earth surges. Things even more important than a computer (furnace controls, bathroom and kitchen GFCIs, smoke detectors) are also protected. Protected by a device that far exceeds what the UPS even claims to accomplish. Did you notice the UPS does not even make surge protector claims in numeric specifications? If it provides numbers, you might see 'near zero' protection.
A protector that has no earthing is massively profitable AND does not even claim to protect from the type of surge that typically damages computer motherboards. Don't take my word for it. Where is each type of surge defined AND numbers for that protection? A UPS makes no such claims. Somehow a relay that takes tens of milliseconds to open will stop a surge that does damage in microseconds? That is how UPS protection works?
Install one 'whole house' protector. Verify earthing for telephone and cable TV protection exists and is properly installed. If necessary, get building earthing upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 code requirements. What does the NIST says protector does? It
*diverts* a surge to earth ground. How does it do that if you earthing is missing or insufficient?Why do cable companies recommend removing a protector from their cable? Protector has no earthing - does ineffective protection - and degrades TV signal. Every protector as noted in that NIST citation is only as good as its earth ground. No earth ground means no place for surge energy to be diverted - no effective protection.
One 'whole house' protector does far more than any protector adjacent to electronics - at tens of times less money. Get your earthing inspected or upgraded. Get one 'whole house' protector for everything. Verify your cable and telephone protector are properly installed. Or waste money on devices that will not even claim to provide that protection - in numeric specs?
Any wire that is not earthed (by direct connection or protector) where it enters the building means no effective protection. There is no 'magic box' protector. Protection even in the early 20th Century has always been defined by earthing. The effective protector makes a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground ... to *divert* the surge.
TimR has accurately defined why so little wire can conduct such massive surges. Electrical Engineering Times has two articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" at:
BTW, also notice everything defined for surge protection. Notice the article never discusses plug-in protectors or a UPS. This professional engineering trade rag is not selling hype and myth. Both articles discuss the only thing required for surge protection - earthing and connections to earthing.
What is a protector? A connecting device to earth ground. It must
*divert* a surge to earth. But earth ground defines that protection. This engineer author discusses wire size to conduct lightning to earth, how wires must be routed, why that connection must be so short, AND of course the most important part of surge protection - the earth ground electrode. Protection of electronics is defined by the most critical component in any surge protection system - earth ground. This engineering article on lightning protection discusses what most important component? Earthing.
TimR has accurately defined why so little wire can conduct such massive surges. Electrical Engineering Times has two articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" at:
BTW, also notice everything defined for surge protection. Notice the article never discusses plug-in protectors or a UPS. This professional engineering trade rag is not selling hype and myth. Both articles discuss the only thing required for surge protection - earthing and connections to earthing.
What is a protector? A connecting device to earth ground. It must
*divert* a surge to earth. But earth ground defines that protection. This engineer author discusses wire size to conduct lightning to earth, how wires must be routed, why that connection must be so short, AND of course the most important part of surge protection - the earth ground electrode. Protection of electronics is defined by the most critical component in any surge protection system - earth ground. This engineering article on lightning protection discusses what most important component? Earthing.
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution".
A second excellent guide on surges and surge protection from the IEEE is at:
Needs no protector? The IEEE guide notes that the voltage between cable center conductor and sheath is limited by the breakdown of F-connectors which is typically 2-4,000V. The guide notes that connected equipment can be damaged at those voltages. Plug-in suppressors will likely clamp the voltage to a reasonable level.
The concern is not distance to common electrode but distance from phone, cable entry protector to the earthing wire at the power service. Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST guide, has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."
The IEEE guide says: "If the cable, satellite, or phone cables do not enter the building near the service entrance, the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
Service panel suppressors are a good idea. What does the NIST 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, 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."
Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.
The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.
There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.
w_ has never answered:
- 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"?
? bud--
Bud's citations show how a plug-in protector works and why it will even contribute to damage of the motherboard. In facilities that require protection (ie your telephone Central Office with a computer connected to overhead wires all over town), Bud's solution is not used. They need protection; not enriching a manufacturer. Where failure is not acceptable, plug-in protectors are not used. Bud's plug-in protectors do not even claim, with numbers, to provide protection. The NIST defines how it might work and then warns why plug-in protectors are not effective:
Bud recommends protectors that don't have effective earthing. That was even explained in that Electrical Engineering Times article entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". Wire has impedance. The 'whole house' protector with a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth can divert a surge to earth. Where is lightning energy dissipated? In a protector? Yes, if fire is an acceptable option. Energy must be dissipated in earth which is why effective protectors have that short and dedicated earthing connection.
Bud will avoid ALL discussion about earthing. His protectors have no effective earthing. A $3 power strip with some $0.10 parts sells for $25 or $150. With such massive profits, then truth becomes a victim.
Undersizing makes it even more profitable. Another problem with protectors that are missing that earthing connection - these 'scary pictures':
Ask Bud for specifications that list each type of surge AND numbers for protection from each surge? Numbers do not exist. When challenged to provide those numbers, Bud resorted to mockery and insults. But then profits are at risk.
Bud's two citations both define why plug-in protectors cannot accomplish what one 'whole house' protector does. So where does the surge energy get dissipated? In those scary pictures? Effective protectors dissipate lightning energy harmlessly in earth - without those scary pictures. Effective protectors make surges irrelevant so that a protector remains functional and the human never even knew a surge existed. Just another reason why responsible homeowners instead earth one 'whole house' protector. Spend less money for superior protection.
Bud's second citation shows a plug-in protector too far from earth ground and too close to appliances. Therefore it earths 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. What kind of protector is that? Ungrounded. That is what Bud promotes. Why does the article from Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" not discuss plug-in protectors? It is about surge protection - not scams. Protection is completely about earthing.
Plug-in protectors don't have that earthing connection. Plug-in protectors may be so grossly undersized (to increase profits) as to even create those 'scary pictures'. Responsible engineering always require earthing for protection. Your own telco does not use what Bud recommends for the same reasons. Profits are at risk if you learn why one 'whole house' protector does so much and costs less money. The effective solution is a protector with a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground. That's one 'whole house' protector without risk in those 'scary pictures'.
Distance to the earth> What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
at:
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? Repeating: ?They are ?the easiest solution?.? and: "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, 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."
With no valid technical arguments w_ has to twist what the NIST says.
I recommend only accurate information. Read the guides and install what you want.
Repeating: ?The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating of 75,000 A and 1475 Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.
"Undersizing" is a red herring. Suppressors with very high ratings are readily available.
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has are pathetic scare tactics.
What is the source of the article? Who said the surge suppressor was the cause? Why? Was it UL listed or cheap unlisted crap? Was it made before
1998?
Repeating: ?Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.?
Lacking technical arguments w_ has to invent ?each type of surge?. w_?s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does not list ?each type of surge?.
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.
Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage at TV2.
The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power service ?ground? is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.
As always, w_ has still not found another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.
w_ has never answered:
- 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? Can?t even answer simple questions w_???
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
? bud--
Did Bud forget to mention a plug-in protector protects from one irrelevant type of surge? That is the point. His citation shows a plug-in protector earthing an 8000 volt surge destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. It had no dedicated earthing path. It cannot clamp to nothing. Where did that surge energy get dissipiated? No dedicated earthing; so it earthed (clamped) surge energy through an appliance. Bud calls that effective protection and previously said the homeowner should buy $3000 of protectors for everything.
Meanwhile, eliminate all plug-in protectors, install one 'whole house' protector from responsible manufacturers, and upgrade earthing to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements (did Bud also forget to mention that?) to have complete and effective protection.
Why do telcos in every town everywhere not use Bud's recommendation? Required is protection that works, does not waste money, and clamps (shunts, connects, diverts) surge energy into earth. Why does the US Air Force instruction manual demand only 'whole house' protectors?
Meanwhile where is any plug-in protector spec that lists each type of surge AND numbers for that protection? Why does Bud routinely fear that question maybe 400 times now? Plug-in protectors do not claim to protect from a type of surge that typically causes damage. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective.
Bud will post incessently so that your eyes glaze over. If he lie enoughm - confuse reality - then you will buy what is simple rather then what works. Profits are more important than honesty. Posting enough lies and half truth will get you to forget what is demanded by every professional organization from IEEE, to NIST, to every telco, to every commercial broadcaster, to every electric company, to military facilities ... They all demand protectors with better earthing. They don't use what Bud recommends.
Bud even avoids all discussion of earthing because his protector does not have that dedicated earthing connection. Plug-in protector does not provide the comprehensive protection provided by one properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Properly earthed 'whole house' protector is a simpler, less expensive, and real world solution. It eliminates the need for grossly overpriced and 'scary picture' plug-in protectors.
A protector without earthing does not provide protection. Why does he avoid that reality? Where does surge energy get diverted if not into earth? Page 42 Figure 8. Surge was diverted 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Energy not dissipated in earth must be dissipated where? Bud will not even provide a manufacturer specs. Why? Even his manufacturer will not make such claims in writing. Instead they have Bud.
Bud begins his post with spin (lying by telling half truths). That telco installed 'whole house' protector on your phone line did not provide protection for two wire appliances because ALL incoming utilities must have such protection. Bud forgets to mention that part. Damage still happened because another 'whole house' protector was not installed on AC mains. Bud 'forgets' why two wire appliance are damaged. What happens when AC electric, telephone, cable, and satellite dish are all properly earthed? All one wire, two wire, three wire and 100 wire appliances are protected. Your telco uses 'whole house' protectors so that a 100,000 wire appliance is protected
- and without any plug-in protectors. Bud is accused of posting another half truth just to confuse you. Honesty is not Bud which is why he will post incessently.
Where does the US Army recommend plug-in protectors? Not. US Army needs reliable protection. Protectors that 'clamp to nothing' (as Bud claims), instead, clamp 8000 volts destructively through adjacent electronics such as Page 42 Figure 8.
Why does Bud also ignore those 'scary pictures'? He lied. UL1449 was created in the late 1980s - and Bud knows that. 'Scary pictures' are protectors built long after 1987 - and still did what in Boston on
28 Sept? Be> ...
The same drivel from a religious fanatic. I provide reputable sources - guides from the IEEE and NIST. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
w_ can?t even find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you get are his opinions based on a religious belief in earthing.
w_ can?t answer 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
?- bud--
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.