A
Arno Wagner
Interesting thing, though. My supressor strip is rated at 15'000A.
Maybe your base asumptions are wrong?
Arno
Interesting thing, though. My supressor strip is rated at 15'000A.
Maybe your base asumptions are wrong?
Arno
W
w_tom
So you let them spin another half truth. Where are those currents
conducted? 3000 amps from one phone line to another. 3000 amps from
one phone line to safety ground. 3000 amps from hot to neutral. 3000
amps from neutral to safety ground. 3000 amps from that wire to the
other wire. Protector only conducts 3000 A in one channel and you
think it is 15,000 A? Yes, if not asking embarrassing questions.
Instead, Martzloff discusses the one path that does conduct the
entire surge. His conclusion is demonstrated by scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
A properly sized and earthed 'whole house' protector is necessary to
protect plug-in protectors and other household appliances.
It was rated for 15,000 amps by playing number games to inflate the
number.
Meanwhile, Bud's own citations define what is essential to effective
protection:
What is required and essential to effective protection? Earthing
including that short connection. What does Martzloff define as
necessary for protecting plug-in protectors from 'scary pictures'?
Earthing that must be as short as possible ('less than 10 feet') and
even without 90 degree wire bends.
A
Arno Wagner
Don't try to worm your way out of this. My supressor is rated at
15'000A on every supressed path, of which there are three.
Arno
B
Bud--
<etc>w_tom said:
When something challenges w_'s religious belief in earthing it has to be
misinterpreted or discredited.
First IEEE *guide* is misrepresented as a *technical paper*. And you
have to be stupid to think the IEEE would release a guide to the general
public that is not consistent with the IEEE color books
Then he tries to discredit the guide as not being a "standard". From
the guide:
"The information contained in IEEE Press/Standards Information Network
publications is reviewed and evaluated by peer reviewers of relevant
IEEE Technical Societies, Standards Committees and/or Working Groups,
and/or relevant technical organizations. The authors addressed all of
the reviewers' comments to the satisfaction of both the IEEE Standards
Information Network and those who served as peer reviewers for this
document.
"The quality of the presentation of information contained in this
publication reflects not only the obvious efforts of the authors, but
also the work of these peer reviewers."
Contrary to w_'s misrepresentation, the guide represents the thinking of
the IEEE.
And if w_ was not blinded by his religious belief in earthing he would
find the Emerald book - an IEEE standard - recognizes plug-in
suppressors as an effective protection device.
The requires statement of religious belief in earthing.
As explained in the *IEEE* guide, for anyone who can read and think,
plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires
(power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing.
No link. No title. History of misrepresentation by w_.
Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that says plug-in suppressors are effective.
Statement of religious belief in earthing #2.
The IEEE guide is quite blunt about it - plug-in suppressors are effective.
And I promote accurate information - it can be found in the IEEE and/or
NIST guides. Use plug-in suppressors or don't - but base the decision on
accurate information.
As always, no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective.
But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Bizarre claim: plug-in surge suppressors don’t work
No sources.
Distort or attempt to discredit opposing sources.
Attempt to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.
W
w_tom
The bank has $1 million in the vault. Your account is in that
bank. Therefore you have $1 million in your account? Same logic
applies to that 15,000 A; which is far from reality and explains
those scary pictures. Your suppressor is not rated for 15,000 A on
every path. Arno's post demonstrates why plug-in protectors are so
easily promoted to those who want to believe rather than learn.
Clearly faith is more important than a grasp of reality. A
responsible consumer instead asks embarrassing questions. Questions
such as why your telco does not use that ineffective protector.
Telcos need and use effective protection.
A protector is rated at 15,000 amps when one assumes rather than
learns; did not even break one open or learn from MOV manufacturer
datasheets. Above IEEE paper discusses earthing a 'whole house'
protector to also protect plug-in protectors. 'Scary pictures' also
demonstrate why earthing is necessary and essential.
W
w_tom
IEEE Standards repeatedly demand earthing for proteciton. Bud
insists earthing is not necessary. Bud so fears reality as to not even
repost exact quotes from IEEE Standards that define protection. Even
Bud's own citations Page 42 Figure 8 shows a plug-in protector - with
all but no earth ground - causing 8000 volts damage the to TV. Bud
does not dispute this. He simply ignores that damage hoping that a
lurker will forget what the IEEE demands (in Standards) for protection
- earth ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. Of
course the troll will reply with more personal attacks because he
cannot even dispute what IEEE Standard demand and require for
protection. Admission would only confirm what his own citation Page
42 Figure 8 shows: a plug-in protector destroying a TV because it is
too close to the TV and too far from earth ground.
Bud also hopes you forget who he promotes for: products without
earthing but are so grossly profitable. According to Bud, the IEEE is
a religous organization. So who is the IEEE Pope?
A
Arno Wagner
Oh but it is. It uses 15'000A rated MOV resistors. I opened it and
checked to make sure the claim on the box was valid. Epcos
B72220Q251K101 (not sure about the exact voltage rating, might
have been the 275V variant as well).
Hehe. No, I did. Both. Why do you assume I did not? Because your
argument falls flat on its face if I did?
Arno
M
Mike Tomlinson
[the usual idiotic repetitive lies and FUD from w_tom]
Correct. The thermal fuse is designed to disconnect power to the MOV
when the MOV has shunted many surges and reached the end of its useful
working life. When that happens, it begins to heat up and the fuse will
open to protect the user. A simple and effective protective measure
which was clearly not employed in the cheap surge protectors in one of
the links to "scary pictures" you keep posting to try and justify your
indefensible position.
You have never provided any credible evidence to justify "grossly
undersized". Arno has posted details to show that his surge protector
has the ability to clamp 15,000A per suppressed path. You, of course,
tried unsuccessfully to distort that by claiming it was in fact only
3,000A.
You expose your chronic lack of understanding yet again. The thermal
fuse on the MOV is a safety measure and has no involvement with the
supply of power to the appliance. It is there solely to disconnect the
MOV if it overheats. Try taking some classes in reading comprehension.
It did, until the thermal fuse performed its job and disconnected the
worn out MOV.
Correction: the power strip, having done its job and conducted away many
surges, thus protecting the appliances connected to it, has now reached
the end of its working life. A useful "Failure" light informs the user
that the strip's protective features have worn out and it is now time to
replace it.
The power strip has therefore performed the job for which it was
designed, and you have a problem with that?
More twisting of other people's postings. Yes, that is called
protection. The strip did the job it was designed to do.
The use of the word "scary" shows your real agenda. Unable to provide
any technical justification for your position, you resort to FUD (fear,
uncertainty and doubt), to try and frighten readers into your way of
thinking. A classic high-pressure sales tactic.
That claim yet again, which you've been asked to substantiate by several
people, but persistently fail to do. If you had the true conviction of
your beliefs, you would post using your real name and declare your
interest, i.e. which manufacturer's products you sell.
Woooooo!!! Scaaaaarrry! *waves hands around while pulling a face*
That about sums up the nature of your postings. Do you ever read what
you write? Your posting style is messianic, repetitive, didactic,
misleading, unauthoritative, and chronically inept.
As a cursory Google Groups search will show, you pop up in various
groups from time to time when the subject of surge protection crops up
and have done so for many years. Each time, your arguments are debunked
by different people, yet you persist. That you're always right and
everyone else wrong speaks volumes about you.
Correct. The thermal fuse is designed to disconnect power to the MOV
when the MOV has shunted many surges and reached the end of its useful
working life. When that happens, it begins to heat up and the fuse will
open to protect the user. A simple and effective protective measure
which was clearly not employed in the cheap surge protectors in one of
the links to "scary pictures" you keep posting to try and justify your
indefensible position.
You have never provided any credible evidence to justify "grossly
undersized". Arno has posted details to show that his surge protector
has the ability to clamp 15,000A per suppressed path. You, of course,
tried unsuccessfully to distort that by claiming it was in fact only
3,000A.
You expose your chronic lack of understanding yet again. The thermal
fuse on the MOV is a safety measure and has no involvement with the
supply of power to the appliance. It is there solely to disconnect the
MOV if it overheats. Try taking some classes in reading comprehension.
It did, until the thermal fuse performed its job and disconnected the
worn out MOV.
Correction: the power strip, having done its job and conducted away many
surges, thus protecting the appliances connected to it, has now reached
the end of its working life. A useful "Failure" light informs the user
that the strip's protective features have worn out and it is now time to
replace it.
The power strip has therefore performed the job for which it was
designed, and you have a problem with that?
More twisting of other people's postings. Yes, that is called
protection. The strip did the job it was designed to do.
The use of the word "scary" shows your real agenda. Unable to provide
any technical justification for your position, you resort to FUD (fear,
uncertainty and doubt), to try and frighten readers into your way of
thinking. A classic high-pressure sales tactic.
That claim yet again, which you've been asked to substantiate by several
people, but persistently fail to do. If you had the true conviction of
your beliefs, you would post using your real name and declare your
interest, i.e. which manufacturer's products you sell.
Woooooo!!! Scaaaaarrry! *waves hands around while pulling a face*
That about sums up the nature of your postings. Do you ever read what
you write? Your posting style is messianic, repetitive, didactic,
misleading, unauthoritative, and chronically inept.
As a cursory Google Groups search will show, you pop up in various
groups from time to time when the subject of surge protection crops up
and have done so for many years. Each time, your arguments are debunked
by different people, yet you persist. That you're always right and
everyone else wrong speaks volumes about you.
A
Arno Wagner
Previously Mike Tomlinson said:
B
Bud--
w_tom said:
Bullcrap. I repeat what the IEEE guide says - plug-in suppressors work
primarily by clamping, not earthing. Earthing occurrs elsewhere.
The required religious mantra.
Quite correct about the troll. Lacking any technical arguments w_
regularly calls me a manufacturers pawn.
And still no links that say plug-in suppressors are effective. Where are
your links w_? Have you noticed no one here believes you? Post your
links and convince everyone. Until then - pathetic junk science from a
religious fanatic.
W
w_tom
Mike Tomlinson is posting without learning from MOV manufacturer
datasheets. When does an MOV working life end? When it *degrades*.
MOV voltage changes 10%. MOV must not short circuit or
catastrophically explode as Mike Tomlinson naively promotes.
Unacceptable catastrophic failure causes excessive temperature; blows
a safety fuse. MOVs degrades when properly sized; must not
catastrophically fail, blow that fuse, trigger a failure indicator
lamp.
That fuse can blow during UL1449 testing - protector circuit
disconnects - and still get UL 1449 approval. Why? UL's only
concern: it does not threaten human life; does not create a fire.
But it also did not provide effective protection.
Mike Tomlinson was provided manufacturer information on 7 Mar 2007.
He ignored manufacturer datasheets to again post his myths. Tomlinson
knows from observation of grossly undersized plug-in protectors. Were
those manufacturer datasheets too complex for Mike? Reposted is what
Mike Tomlinson ignored to again repost myths.
Manufacturer datasheet for life expectancy is graphs on page 5:
http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/CA.pdf
A 330 joule protector (V251CA32) will shunt a ten thousand 300 amp
surges. A 370 joule MOV is rated for 60,000 surges. And the 880 joule
MOV has a life expectancy of 100,000. Those curves end when current
during one surge is excessive; beyond what the manufacturer intended;
long before an MOV should fail; short; vaporize; cause that indicator
light to report a defect. Protectors that are properly sized shunt
many surges, remain functional, and do not trip that failure light.
Voltage that defines "degraded" is quoted from that datasheet:
What happens when an MOV has degraded?
What happens when a light indicates failure? Device no longer
functions; "absolute maximum ratings" were exceeded. Quote is
directly from that manufacturer datasheet. When has a protector
degraded? When its voltage change exceeds 10%; it does not vaporize
or explode.
Another manufacturer that also bluntly contradicts Mike Tomlinson:
Some myth purveyors claim a protector is good for only one surge.
Somehow "it sacrificed itself to save my computer." Classic myth.
Some plug-in protectors are intentionally undersized so that a first
surge causes failure; triggers that indicator light. Indicator light
then gets the naive to buy and promote more grossly undersized and
grossly overpriced protectors. Mike Tomlinson promotes that myth even
after manufacturer data sheets were provided on 7 Mar 2007. He
completely ignored manufacturer datasheets to promote catastrophic
failure as normal or acceptable.
Indicator light simply reports when the protector was so grossly
undersized as to operate beyond what a manufacturer intended. So far
outside that acceptable range that a fuse had to blow to protect
humans. Protection inside the adjacent appliance protected that
appliance. (When MOV fuse blows, appliance remains connected and
surged.)
From another MOV manufacturer is a description of what constitutes
MOV degradation:
If a power strip protector is undersized, then an MOV operates
outside manufacturer ratings - catastrophically self destructs. So
dangerous is this failure mode as to require a thermal fuse. MOV
operating as the manufacturer intended only degrade - don't blow that
fuse. Notice the number of transients to measure degradation?
10,000. But grossly undersized plug-in protectors are often promoted
by the naive as "one shot protection".
MOV datasheets provide graphs that relate number of transients, size
of transients, and time of transient to its life expectancy. That
means its voltage only changed 10% - does not short circuit or
vaporize. When a plug-in protector is grossly undersized, well, UL
1449 was created to reduce the frequency of these scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
Why these scary pictures? Even with UL1449 approval, some plug-in
protectors still fail in dangerous locations such as on a rug or
adjacent to a pile of desktop papers. UL1449 says nothing about surge
protection - only attempts to minimize those scary pictures.
If an MOV fails catastrophically - excessively hot as to blow a
thermal fuse - then it operates well outside acceptable parameters
(per manufacturer datasheets).
Fusing is to protect humans - not to protect transistors. Properly
sized MOVs only degrade with use. But catastrophic failure sells more
ineffective protector to the naive. Catastrophic failure gets people
such as Mike Tomlinson to *assume* that vaporization is normal and
acceptable. Even when provided manufacturer datasheets, Mike
Tomlinson still assumed that catastrophic failure is acceptable.
Reality from manufacturer datasheets: MOVs blow that thermal fuse
when operating well outside of spec numbers. If a thermal fuse blows
(as indicated by the indicator light), then protector was excessively
undersized - is ineffective.
Why no earth ground? Well it's not protection. Forget a dedicated
earthing wire. Forget about sufficient joules. Neither increase
profit margins nor pay for Bud. Mike Tomlinson posts despite and in
contradiction to what is in MOV manufacturer datasheets.
M
Mike Tomlinson
You're lying, twisting and distorting again w_tom. Your desperation is
palpable. You even resort to repeating my name many times - for what
purpose? I have nothing to hide and post using my real name; you don't
have the conviction of your own beliefs, otherwise you would post using
your real name and declare for whom you work as a salesman. For the
record, I have no connection to any business making or selling surge
protection: my interest is from the viewpoint of an interested end-user
with a background in computing and electronics.
You are lying, twisting and distorting again. I at no point said it was
acceptable for a surge protector to "catastrophically explode". A MOV,
when reaching the end of its life, will begin to heat up. The thermal
fuse will disconnect it from the power BEFORE it has a chance to
explode. I am perfectly capable of reading and comprehending
manufacturer's datasheets without twisting the data they provide as you
do.
You tried to pull a similar stunt by twisting one of my posts to say
that I believed it was acceptable for our site in the Canary Islands to
suffer catastrophic damage in the event of a lightning strike, when I
said no such thing. You are a liar and a charlatan, and your posts are
evasive and disingenuous, distorting what others say to suit your
argument.
Wrong (yet again). The fuse will open and remove power to the MOV
before it has a chance to explode. Must you REALLY repeat everything
multiple times? It doesn't confer any more credibility on you, not that
you have any credibility anyway.
[snip crap repeated ad infinitum]
Why do you need to repeat yourself so much? It doesn't strengthen your
argument, instead it weakens it as you appear desperate to prove your
point. Saying it three times doesn't make it any more valid, not that
it was ever valid in the first place.
You must be great fun in your local bar in Pennsylvania: repeat
everything three times and expect everyone to take your word for it.
Here we go again: wooo!!! Scary!!!! Trading on fear, uncertainty and
doubt, w_tom's stock in trade, classic high pressure sales tactics.
Because you're a charlatan? None of the pictures you link to shows
thermal fuses on the MOVs. That's exactly why they failed
catastrophically. Given the age of the links you provide, the
protectors shown were very likely to have been manufactured before
UL1449 was mandatory and thus had no overheating protection. Of course,
you would rather not acknowledge that fact - you'd rather rely on FUD.
Getting hot enough to blow a thermal fuse is NOT the same as
catastrophic failure. But then you are a liar and charlatan and have no
hesitation in twisting the truth to suit your own agenda.
You are a liar and have twisted the truth yet again. I never said that,
and a reading of my post immediately prior to yours will confirm this.
Please retract your statement above.
*Yawn* - statement of religious mania ((c) Bud
yet again.
I also note that you have once again "conveniently" ignored the
questions I and others have raised many times. Those are:
1) Please post details of a whole house surge protector available from a
well-known US DIY chain for less than $50. 2) Post using your real
name, detail your qualifications. 3) Declare for whom you work and where
your financial interest lies in promoting the devices you constantly
advocate.
And your posts are still messianic, didactic, repetitive, misleading and
unauthoritative. Not to mention boring. You have zero credibility as
anyone searching Google Groups for your posting handles, (e-mail address removed)
and (e-mail address removed), will discover for themselves.
w_tom vs. The Rest of the World: w_tom believes he is right when many
others have comprehensively refuted and disproved his lies and
distortions.
palpable. You even resort to repeating my name many times - for what
purpose? I have nothing to hide and post using my real name; you don't
have the conviction of your own beliefs, otherwise you would post using
your real name and declare for whom you work as a salesman. For the
record, I have no connection to any business making or selling surge
protection: my interest is from the viewpoint of an interested end-user
with a background in computing and electronics.
You are lying, twisting and distorting again. I at no point said it was
acceptable for a surge protector to "catastrophically explode". A MOV,
when reaching the end of its life, will begin to heat up. The thermal
fuse will disconnect it from the power BEFORE it has a chance to
explode. I am perfectly capable of reading and comprehending
manufacturer's datasheets without twisting the data they provide as you
do.
You tried to pull a similar stunt by twisting one of my posts to say
that I believed it was acceptable for our site in the Canary Islands to
suffer catastrophic damage in the event of a lightning strike, when I
said no such thing. You are a liar and a charlatan, and your posts are
evasive and disingenuous, distorting what others say to suit your
argument.
Wrong (yet again). The fuse will open and remove power to the MOV
before it has a chance to explode. Must you REALLY repeat everything
multiple times? It doesn't confer any more credibility on you, not that
you have any credibility anyway.
[snip crap repeated ad infinitum]
Why do you need to repeat yourself so much? It doesn't strengthen your
argument, instead it weakens it as you appear desperate to prove your
point. Saying it three times doesn't make it any more valid, not that
it was ever valid in the first place.
You must be great fun in your local bar in Pennsylvania: repeat
everything three times and expect everyone to take your word for it.
Here we go again: wooo!!! Scary!!!! Trading on fear, uncertainty and
doubt, w_tom's stock in trade, classic high pressure sales tactics.
Because you're a charlatan? None of the pictures you link to shows
thermal fuses on the MOVs. That's exactly why they failed
catastrophically. Given the age of the links you provide, the
protectors shown were very likely to have been manufactured before
UL1449 was mandatory and thus had no overheating protection. Of course,
you would rather not acknowledge that fact - you'd rather rely on FUD.
Getting hot enough to blow a thermal fuse is NOT the same as
catastrophic failure. But then you are a liar and charlatan and have no
hesitation in twisting the truth to suit your own agenda.
You are a liar and have twisted the truth yet again. I never said that,
and a reading of my post immediately prior to yours will confirm this.
Please retract your statement above.
*Yawn* - statement of religious mania ((c) Bud
yet again.I also note that you have once again "conveniently" ignored the
questions I and others have raised many times. Those are:
1) Please post details of a whole house surge protector available from a
well-known US DIY chain for less than $50. 2) Post using your real
name, detail your qualifications. 3) Declare for whom you work and where
your financial interest lies in promoting the devices you constantly
advocate.
And your posts are still messianic, didactic, repetitive, misleading and
unauthoritative. Not to mention boring. You have zero credibility as
anyone searching Google Groups for your posting handles, (e-mail address removed)
and (e-mail address removed), will discover for themselves.
w_tom vs. The Rest of the World: w_tom believes he is right when many
others have comprehensively refuted and disproved his lies and
distortions.
J
John Turco
Arno said:
<edited>
Hello, Arno:
You're an electrical engineer, eh? Folkert will never believe it! ;-)
Cordially,
John Turco <[email protected]>
A
Arno Wagner
Well, I don't really care about the ravings of one specific insane
person with usenet access...
And no, I am not an EE, I have a degree in CS. Electronics is a more
of a long-standing hobby for me.
Arno
B
Bud+
Which is why you didn't really say that here, right babblebot?
It just blurted out, uncontrolled.
Babblebot will never badmouth people, he said.
But then babblebot *is* a patholocial liar.
Will even make up an IEEE membership.
No, really?
You sure it's not the other way around?
A
Arno Wagner
Previously Bud+ said:
Funny, I am not the guy that has to impersonate others in order to
be read at all.
Arno
T
Timothy Daniels
Arno Wagner said:
Be careful, Arno, or there will be a Bud++ and then a Bud#
and then a Bud.NET .
*TimDaniels*
A
Arno Wagner
Previously Timothy Daniels said:Be careful, Arno, or there will be a Bud++ and then a Bud#
and then a Bud.NET .
Hehe
Arno
F
Folkert Rienstra
Impersonate babblebot? You must be 'confused'.
.. Correct, you are the guy with the immense kill file to safeguard
him from being confronted with the comments on all his stupidity.
.. So then, why are you responding to Bud+ when you wouldn't have if
I had used my own name.
.. And what makes you think you are not in someone else's killfile
and are read at all.
Or is hearing yourself speak already enough for you.
He was actually making you look stupid, moron babblebot.
But as usual you didn't get the clue.
Oh, I used my own name so I shut you up again, babblebot.
See sockpuppet, I push your buttons.
.. Correct, you are the guy with the immense kill file to safeguard
him from being confronted with the comments on all his stupidity.
.. So then, why are you responding to Bud+ when you wouldn't have if
I had used my own name.
.. And what makes you think you are not in someone else's killfile
and are read at all.
Or is hearing yourself speak already enough for you.
Hehe
He was actually making you look stupid, moron babblebot.
But as usual you didn't get the clue.
Oh, I used my own name so I shut you up again, babblebot.
See sockpuppet, I push your buttons.
K
Keith Wilby
w_tom said:
Earthing is a safety mechanism, nothing to do with surges AT ALL.