Are mains surge protectors needed in the UK?

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

on and on it goes..... I for one was impressed by all you A1's etc.
two years ago, please put the plumage back


"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10f9fv2elu20457@corp.supernews.com...
> Al Dykes wrote:
>
> > In article <10f95gt5se8oqca@corp.supernews.com>,
> > David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
> >
> >>w_tom wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> David Maynard worried about daily transients created by
> >>>utility line switching.
> >>
> >>I said no such thing.
> >
> >
> > Transients happen. I'm not sure what "line switching" but here's
my
> > experience;
>
> I agree.
>
> Here's what the 'dispute' is between w_tom and me, on this point.
>
> He makes multiple, often contradictory, claims (whatever seems
'convenient'
> at the moment). He'll imply that surges from sources other than
lightning
> simply don't happen (some statistics I've seen indicate that 80% of
> equipment damaging surges are from sources other than lightning). Or
he'll
> claim that appliances (as if all are equivalent) are already
protected from
> them (an apparent contradiction with their 'non' existence in the
first
> place). Or, when given a direct example, will then make the '8 year'
claim,
> which he then mischaracterizes as "across the country" in an obvious
> attempt to suggest '1 incident' per '8 years' occurs 'in the whole
U.S.'.
> He'll claim that if your LED clock hasn't blow up yet then nothing
ever
> will, regardless of what kind of device it is. Or that since your
LED clock
> hasn't blow up then there could not possibly have ever been any
surges, and
> never will be.
>
> It is those, and other, either mischaracterizations, irrational
assertions
> or, in some cases, flat out lies that I dispute.
>
> To which he will then claim I said some absurdity that was never
said nor
> implied. In this case, since I pointed out that non lightning
related
> surges can, and do, happen he then claims (as above) that I said
equipment
> damaging surges happen "daily" (the reason I supposedly sit here
"worried"
> about them even though my "LED clock" still works <rolling eyes>)
>
> It is perhaps a flaw of mine that I have little tolerance for liars,
and
> especially when they try to shove them down my throat.
>
> > I managed the construction of a new computer facility, years ago.
I
> > know from the planning that the system drew 60kW (really 60 kVA)
No
> > UPS. The manufacturer didn't recommend one, and it was only a
"small"
> > system.
> >
> > We fired it up sometime in the fall and the machine was rock
solid, as
> > only a mainframe can be, until the first of May, the next spring
> > (we're in NYC) At 7:15 that morning the system crashed and
> > rebooted. The next morning it did exactly the same thing, and the
> > next. We got the field engineers in, then the building engineers,
and
> > nobody found anything wrong (we had pen trace power monitoring by
that
> > point, which showed us it was a power problem.) Eventually we got
a
> > Con Edison representative in and when we showed him the pen tape
he
> > said "yes, we've done this every spring for 30 years. What's your
> > problem?"
> >
> > Given the chance to explain, he said that in anticipation of the
> > additional load of air conditioning they switched large capacitors
> > (the size of trash cans) into the circuits to correct for the
> > additional inductive load (which is the relationship to kVA (kilo
> > Volt-Amps) to kW (kilo Watts). It turns out that Con Edison
delivered
> > "commercial grade power" and it was our responsibility live with
it.
> > We first got a Constant Voltage Transformemr the size of a
volksvogan,
> > which smothed out the lumps, and a couple years later built a UPS
> > system with batteries that looked like the battery room of a WWII
> > submarine.
> >
>
> Hehe. I greatly enjoyed your colorful equipment descriptions,
especially
> the WWII submarine battery room. I know precisely what you mean.
Seen 'em
> too, in both places.
>
> I had a 'seasonal' issue once too, except it wasn't power related.
The oil
> company, unbeknownst to anyone, decided that the area right under
the air
> conditioner intake to the computer equipment room would make for a
dandy
> spot to spring clean their chemical tanks. Our equipment was
unaffected but
> the fumes played havoc with the high voltage in the CRT monitors.
>
> Didn't seem to bother any of the 'humans' either.
>
> We only found it because I kept pressing for ANY THING different in
the
> Spring? No, not just 'in there'; ANY WHERE. Some one finally
mentioned
> "well, we clean the tanks. Too cold to do that in the winter."
Where? "Oh,
> just outside the wall."
>
>
> > ansient that must also have been > destroying HIS LED clock. A
> >
> >>flat out lie that YOU invented. > After years of LED clock
failure >
> >>(that did not happen) et al, then David Maynard said we need >
> >>plug-in protectors. Another lie. > Oh? Those clocks were not
> >>failing daily > or weekly due to line switching? Well then what
> >>protected > even those LED clocks? Maybe those destructive line
> >>switching > transients just don't exist? Duhhhh..... Besides
being
> >>an all around pompous ass, you are a bald face liar. > In the
> >>meantime, the point of that post and LED clock > example was that
> >>destructive transient occur typically once > every eight years.
And
> >>I've not have one of your "whole house protectors" for way longer
> >>tha= n=20 8 years with no "LED clock" damage. So, by your own
idiotic
> >>criteria, you= r=20 device is 'unnecessary' as well. > Does one
need
> >>protection? First, what is > the frequency of destructive
transients
> >>in your neighborhood?=20 > We know even from LED clocks that
> >>destructive surges are rare > events. That argument depends on
the
> >>entirely fallacious presumption that an "LED= =20 clock" is 100%
> >>representative of every electronic device. > Do we put a plug-in
> >>protector on all clocks at =A310 or > =A330 per clock? Yes
according
> >>to those here who work for the > plug-in protector industry. Two
> >>more lies. > Spend big bucks to protect an > appliance that
already
> >>has effective adjacent protection? I'm tempted to call this
another
> >>lie but it could be that your just plain= =20 stupid, or both.
>=20
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.vendors (More info?)

Bagpuss wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:44:53 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> <Snip>
>
>
>>I DID read it, and it's obvious you haven't a clue. Not that that stops you
>
>>from spouting garbage about it anyway.
>
>>> They did provide that long list of
>>>exemptions with the Belkin protector. Oh? They forgot to
>>>provide that information? How curious.
>>
>>What isn't curious are your perpetual innuendoes and attacks on
>>manufacturers you have no clue about, terms and conditions you have no clue
>>about, and technology you have no clue about.
>>
>
>
> As we all know about the perpetual motion engine (buttered toast
> strapped to the back of a dropped cat) perhaps we could generate a
> stasis device by pluging 4 of w_toms exploding LED clocks in to a
> belkin surge protector. It should result in a set of LED clocks
> permenantly in the state of breakdown due to the expected surge, but
> the surge never quite arriving at the clocks. The result, I theorise,
> is a destructive spark suspended in time somewhere inside the belkin
> unit or one of 4 clocks resulting in a set of 4 clocks that will never
> breakdown.

Hehe. A 'surge' version of Schrodinger's cat, eh?

>
> Much like like the Asphyx suspended in the box lit by a flash compound
> in the film The Asphyx.

 

[Bagpuss]

Archived from groups: uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.vendors (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:26:11 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Bagpuss wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:44:53 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <Snip>
>>
>>
>>>I DID read it, and it's obvious you haven't a clue. Not that that stops you
>>
>>>from spouting garbage about it anyway.
>>
>>>> They did provide that long list of
>>>>exemptions with the Belkin protector. Oh? They forgot to
>>>>provide that information? How curious.
>>>
>>>What isn't curious are your perpetual innuendoes and attacks on
>>>manufacturers you have no clue about, terms and conditions you have no clue
>>>about, and technology you have no clue about.
>>>
>>
>>
>> As we all know about the perpetual motion engine (buttered toast
>> strapped to the back of a dropped cat) perhaps we could generate a
>> stasis device by pluging 4 of w_toms exploding LED clocks in to a
>> belkin surge protector. It should result in a set of LED clocks
>> permenantly in the state of breakdown due to the expected surge, but
>> the surge never quite arriving at the clocks. The result, I theorise,
>> is a destructive spark suspended in time somewhere inside the belkin
>> unit or one of 4 clocks resulting in a set of 4 clocks that will never
>> breakdown.
>
>Hehe. A 'surge' version of Schrodinger's cat, eh?

Yep , Shrodinger's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Tom's Clock.

>
>>
>> Much like like the Asphyx suspended in the box lit by a flash compound
>> in the film The Asphyx.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

If one has the necessary background knowledge, then nothing
poted is contradictory. For example David Maynard still
insists that a wall receptacle is earth ground because he does
not even understand simple principles such as wire impedance,
adverse effects created by sharp wire bends and splices (wires
inside walls), induced transient effects on adjacent wires,
and what that earth ground function really accomplishes. In
fact, he is a good myth purveyor for the plug-in surge
protector manufacturer. Insufficient basic electrical
knowledge and little appreciation for the *art* of earthing.

David - first you confuse destructive transients with all
other (and irrelevant) transients. Even a light switch can
create a trivial transient - noise on a medium wave (AM)
radio. Does that noise heard by an AM radio damage
appliances? Of course not. But plug-in protector
manufacturer will even site that as a transient to claim
transients are created inside a buildling.

Only relevant transients are the destrutive type that occur
typically once every eight years. Why do all protectors -
even plug-in type - ignore all voltages below 330 volts (on
120 VAC service) and 500 volts (on 230 volt service)? Because
anything less is not a surge and is well below what any
appliance must withstand - even LED clocks. Why did LED
clocks not fail routinely? Because dstructive transient are
so rare and are not created daily or weekly inside the
building.

What is the most common source of destructive transients?
Lightning. Having posted that in one paragraph rather then in
many paragraphs with supporting detail, then maybe David
Maynard can comprehend that fact. Maybe he will not again
misrepresent what he did not comprehend. Once we have
protected from lightning, then we have installed protection
for virtually all destructive transients.

Are there other destrutive transients? Yes, as demontrated
by all those destroyed LED clocks in the days before
computers. How often did your LED clock fail? Never if I
recall. There is the frequency of those other destructive
transients. Transients also made redundant by a 'whole house'
surge protector that is properly earthed.

For those who got lost by the so many myth responses, here
are some fundamental facts posted earlier in this thread:
Wall receptacle is too far from earth ground to be effectively
earthed:
http://tinyurl.com/56csd

Testimony from industry professionals on how effective
protection is installed:
http://tinyurl.com/4qndu

Some figures from industry professionals who teach
principles of effective protection:
Figure 1 shows bad multipoint earthing; figure 2
provides effective protection:
http://www.xantrex.com/support/docserve.asp?id=337
Every incoming wire can be a source of destructive
transients including the buried wire. All incoming
wires must first make a connection to single point
earth ground:

http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
An example of a well protected cell phone site
demonstrating multiple protection features and the MGB -
master ground bus:
http://www.leminstruments.com/pdf/LEGP.pdf (on page 14)
Examples of good and bad building earthing:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html

In every case, it is not the protector that defines
protection. Protection is defined by the short connection to
earth ground - which plug-in manufacturers (UPS and power
strip) fear a consuner might learn. Even the benchmark in
protectors does not discuss their products in engineering and
application notes. Polyphaser discusses the most critical
component in every protection system - the short connection to
earth ground. These notes are considered legendary by
industry professionals:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_technical.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_pen_home.asp

A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Plug-in protectors have all but no earth ground. No earthing
means no effective protection. To dispute those facts, some
instead attack this messenger.

Even worse are the myths from David Maynard that wall
receptacles are earth grounds. Receptacles only have safety
grounds. But the numbers are too difficult for him to
challenge. Instead he posts personal attacks and ignores the
science. As a classic myth purveyor, he promotes overpriced,
undersized, unearthed, and ineffective products from those
ineffective plug-in manufacturers. One grossly undersized
example was a plug-in UPS with a pathetic 160 joules
protection. Classic example of ineffective protection.

A summary of reasons why plug-in protectors are not
effective - are made redundant by the less expensive, properly
sized, and more effective 'whole house' system was posted in
alt.engineering.electrical with five summary points:
http://tinyurl.com/4d4rg

Industry professionals instead start a discussion about
protection with the concepts of earthing. Principles that
even Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752. Its called science.
A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

David Maynard wrote:
> Here's what the 'dispute' is between w_tom and me, on this point.
>
> He makes multiple, often contradictory, claims (whatever seems
> 'convenient' at the moment). He'll imply that surges from
> sources other than lightning simply don't happen (some
> statistics I've seen indicate that 80% of equipment damaging
> surges are from sources other than lightning). Or he'll
> claim that appliances (as if all are equivalent) are already
> protected from them (an apparent contradiction with their
> 'non' existence in the first place). Or, when given a direct
> example, will then make the '8 year' claim, which he then
> mischaracterizes as "across the country" in an obvious
> attempt to suggest '1 incident' per '8 years' occurs 'in
> the whole U.S.'. He'll claim that if your LED clock hasn't
> blow up yet then nothing ever will, regardless of what kind
> of device it is. Or that since your LED clock hasn't blow up
> then there could not possibly have ever been any surges, and
> never will be.
>
> It is those, and other, either mischaracterizations,
> irrational assertions or, in some cases, flat out lies that
> I dispute.
>
> To which he will then claim I said some absurdity that was
> never said nor implied. In this case, since I pointed out
> that non lightning related surges can, and do, happen he
> then claims (as above) that I said equipment damaging surges
> happen "daily" (the reason I supposedly sit here "worried"
> about them even though my "LED clock" still works <rolling
> eyes>)
>
> It is perhaps a flaw of mine that I have little tolerance
> for liars, and especially when they try to shove them down
> my throat.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I don't have the original thread so this post could be beside the topic but
it probably helps someone.

Re: Are mains surge protectors needed in the UK?

Oh yes!
This doesn't depend on the energy provider you've subscribed to but on all
the equipment connected to the mains (transformers, motors, elevators, SMPS,
fuse blowings or switch operatings on inductive loads, ...) and also on the
atmospherical phenomena and effects. Some areas are highly keraunic (prone
to heavy and numerous lightnings). They need cascaded surge protection
devices, 3 stages at least between the mains input (usually the gate, limit
of the public property) and the sensitive equipment.
In the towns, houses protect them together and the earth ground paths are
quite dense so the earth currents don't increase as much as they do in the
campains. Industrial disturbances still exist.

Whatever the characteristics of the line (aerial or burried) (*) your house
is connected to, surges may be important.
If the line is aerial, it's exposed to direct influence or impact. If
burried, the problems come from the assymetry between the conductors &
transformer outputs vs. the earth. For both, the earth currents in case of
an indirect lightening, may induces voltages as high as 60000 Volts between
the earth of your house and the earth of the provider's transformer. This
depends on the earth path quality.

Soulé (surge protector French manufacturer) says:

exposure frequency level
low to 10 per year 500 to 3000V
medium 1 to 1000 per year 1000 to 6000 V
high all of above + some (?) 6000 to 10000 V

exposure protections
low One level, close to sensitive equipment.
medium Two levels (cabinet + sensitive equipment).
high Three levels (see above)
the latter corresponds to mountain areas and/or very long aerial lines
feeding far country areas or keraunic zones.

exposure level & usual technology
low Class 1.5 (ZnO varistors)
medium Class 2.5 + 1.5 (ZnO varistors)
high Class 4 (?) + 2.5 + 1.5 (silicon carbide varistors)

In both cases (*) surge protectors are needed. For instance:
* In the circuit braker or fuse cabinet: Three 100 Joules / 1200 Vrms
varistors connected between the phase and the neutral and both of them to
the earth. If three phases : One between each phase and one between each
phase and the earth (6 at all). If three phases and Neutral, you should
connect one between each phase and the neutral and one between each phase
and neutral to the earth (7 at all).

* On the computer side, three 275 V / 10 or 20 J are enough (between phase
and earth, neutral and earth and between phase and neutral).

* The phone line shall be protected in the same way. The values may differ
(probably lower but I don't know the voltage).
Both earth return paths shall be star-connected prior to going into the wall
socket and the wires shall be as short and straight as possible.

The house earth ground shall be excellent otherwise the protection will
react as a piece of wood !

Have a look on this link and the following pages.
http://www.powercords.co.uk/reference/surge_protection/guide.htm


This another page can also be interesting
http://www.teccoltd.demon.co.uk/PQM.html

if you read French language...
http://www.mr-bricolage.fr/fiches_magazines/Mb35-12.htm
http://www.socomec.fr/catalogue/pdf_scp/Catec-distri-fr.pdf




"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> a écrit dans le message news:
cd265o$ad0$1@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <10f95gt5se8oqca@corp.supernews.com>,
> David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
> >w_tom wrote:
> >
> >> David Maynard worried about daily transients created by
> >> utility line switching.
> >
> >I said no such thing.
>
> Transients happen. I'm not sure what "line switching" but here's my
> experience;
>
[ snip ]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

w_tom wrote:

> If one has the necessary background knowledge, then nothing
> poted is contradictory.

Most of what you post is contradictory babble. The remainder is slander.

> For example David Maynard still
> insists that a wall receptacle is earth ground because he does
> not even understand simple principles such as wire impedance,
> adverse effects created by sharp wire bends and splices (wires
> inside walls), induced transient effects on adjacent wires,
> and what that earth ground function really accomplishes.

Another lie. What I explained to you is the voltage increase due to that
impedance is essentially irrelevant to protecting the device as long as all
incoming and outgoing lines are clamped to it, as there will be no
excessive voltage across any device terminals: the only thing that matters
to 'protecting' it.

You apparently can't grasp the basic electrical fact that if the device
sees no damaging voltage across any terminal it's connected to that it
matters not where it is with respect to 'earth', or else no aircraft
electrical system would ever work.

And I'd love to hear w-tom explain how his '3 meter ground path' is
absolutely essential to protecting an aircraft's electronics from lightning
induced surges.

For illustrative purposes, take a 3 terminal device. Terminal 1 is at 0
volts with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3
because we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped the three
together. Everything going into and out of the device is as the same
potential, 'earth': it's 'protected'.

Now imagine terminal 1 is at 500 volts, with respect to w-tom's precious
'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect'
suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything going into and
out of the device is as the same potential, 500 volts: it's 'protected'.
Not only is it 'protected' but it is seeing exactly the same situation as
the one clamped to 'earth': no voltage potential between any terminals.

The difference between our 'perfect' suppressor and the real world one is
that the three terminals will not be at the exact same potential, in either
example. They will, however, be within the clamping voltage of the
suppressor (again, in both cases) and as long as that clamp voltage is less
than the device's voltage tolerance then it is protected, in both cases.
And it matters not if this 3 terminal device is in your home, or in an
aircraft at 30,000 feet where w-tom's precious 'earth' is more than '3
meters' away.

What w-tom does is take conditions and criteria that DO matter to a 'whole
house' protector and then fallaciously claim that any device, of any type,
and under any condition not only works the same way but needs to meet the
same criteria.

A 'whole house' protector, by it's nature, is not located at the device(s)
being protected but at the service entry and the effective clamp voltage
that interior devices will see is the voltage between earth, because of
their (non existent, according to w-tom) earth connection in the wall plug
(and/or neutral), and the power rails coming into them. The clamp voltage,
that the interior devices will see is, then, the 'whole house' protector's
clamp voltage PLUS the ground bump caused by impedance in IT'S earth
connection.

I.E. For a 'lousy' ground in violation of w-tom's '3 meters'
in a (simplified) 'whole house' protector:

power -------------------------------------------------
| |
| interior
'whole house 500V clamp devices sees
protector' | 1000 volts
|500V bump |
|from lousy |
single tie |ground impedance |
point ------------------------------------------------
|
earth spike V local earth '0'

The 500V is only for illustration with the amount of the ground bump being
dependent on the wired ground impedance (why it should be SMALL) and the
magnitude of the surge.

That is wholly different than a 'local' protector:

power -----------------------------------------
|
---- interior
Plug-in device sees
clamp ---- 330 volts
|
|
surge current raises device |
single tie ground relative to earth |
point ----------------------------------------
|
earth spike V local earth '0'

Note that even though the device's 'earth ground' is much longer, and with
much higher impedance, than the above 'whole house' protector it only sees
a 'safe' 330 volts instead of the potentially damaging 1,000.

(In both examples, for simplicity's sake, the traditional utility arc gap
suppressors are not shown)

In another misapplication, w-tom perpetually claims that the local
protector is 'under sized' (as if they were all the same to begin with),
citing his 'whole house' protector as 'proof' of it. But, again, the two
situations are not equivalent.

The 'whole house' protector, by the nature of it's (necessary) location at
the input panel, has very little incoming wire impedance to limit the surge
and so must be robust enough to handle very high currents. The 'local'
protector, however, has significant wire impedance between it and the entry
point (in fact, it is this 'excessive' wire length that w-tom claims makes
the ground wire useless) to limit the magnitude of the current it must be
capable of carrying in order to survive.

w-tom's arbitrary claim that 'plug-in protectors' are 'under sized' is like
saying a 30 foot yacht is 'under sized' for carrying two persons and citing
the Queen Mary as 'proof' of it.


> In
> fact, he is a good myth purveyor for the plug-in surge
> protector manufacturer. Insufficient basic electrical
> knowledge and little appreciation for the *art* of earthing.

Good description of yourself.

> David - first you confuse destructive transients with all
> other (and irrelevant) transients.

Not in the least.

> Even a light switch can
> create a trivial transient - noise on a medium wave (AM)
> radio. Does that noise heard by an AM radio damage
> appliances? Of course not. But plug-in protector
> manufacturer will even site that as a transient to claim
> transients are created inside a buildling.

The word is "cite." And what you 'claim' some unknown manufacturer 'cites'
is irrelevant since the topic is the technology of it; not what some yahoo
may, or may not, have written. Not to mention I wouldn't give 2 cents for
it as you've already demonstrated that slander is your preferred means of
'discussion'


> Only relevant transients are the destrutive type that occur
> typically once every eight years. Why do all protectors -
> even plug-in type - ignore all voltages below 330 volts (on
> 120 VAC service) and 500 volts (on 230 volt service)? Because
> anything less is not a surge and is well below what any
> appliance must withstand - even LED clocks. Why did LED
> clocks not fail routinely? Because dstructive transient are
> so rare and are not created daily or weekly inside the
> building.

No one ever claimed "destructive transient" happen "daily or weekly."
That's nothing more than another one of your strawman babbles.

<snip of w-tom's continuing misapplication>

>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>Here's what the 'dispute' is between w_tom and me, on this point.
>>
>>He makes multiple, often contradictory, claims (whatever seems
>>'convenient' at the moment). He'll imply that surges from
>>sources other than lightning simply don't happen (some
>>statistics I've seen indicate that 80% of equipment damaging
>>surges are from sources other than lightning). Or he'll
>>claim that appliances (as if all are equivalent) are already
>>protected from them (an apparent contradiction with their
>>'non' existence in the first place). Or, when given a direct
>>example, will then make the '8 year' claim, which he then
>>mischaracterizes as "across the country" in an obvious
>>attempt to suggest '1 incident' per '8 years' occurs 'in
>>the whole U.S.'. He'll claim that if your LED clock hasn't
>>blow up yet then nothing ever will, regardless of what kind
>>of device it is. Or that since your LED clock hasn't blow up
>>then there could not possibly have ever been any surges, and
>>never will be.
>>
>>It is those, and other, either mischaracterizations,
>>irrational assertions or, in some cases, flat out lies that
>>I dispute.
>>
>>To which he will then claim I said some absurdity that was
>>never said nor implied. In this case, since I pointed out
>>that non lightning related surges can, and do, happen he
>>then claims (as above) that I said equipment damaging surges
>>happen "daily" (the reason I supposedly sit here "worried"
>>about them even though my "LED clock" still works <rolling
>>eyes>)
>>
>>It is perhaps a flaw of mine that I have little tolerance
>>for liars, and especially when they try to shove them down
>>my throat.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Previously made was this silly claim that wire impedance
back to earth ground is irrelevant if all wires are clamped
together to same voltage. Problem is, was the 'wire' called
linoleum tile, concrete floor, wall paint, baseboard heat
pipes, and everything else inside the room also clamped to
that single point? That means the entire room must be
constructed to become part of that single point connection.
If not, then the entire clamping protection is compromised by
the room.

When a trivial 100 amp transient puts protector and adjacent
computer at something approaching 13,000 volts, then those
13,000 volts find new conductors to earth. Not 500 volts.
Thousands of volts. Is the ethernet cable connected from
computer also via the adjacent protector? An even more
expensive protector is required. IOW your system is
implemented successfully when the building is constructed to
protect transistors. But the standard home and office
building compromises your theory. We still don't build as if
the transistor exists.

In theory, the 'single point adjacent connection' concept
works. In reality, it becomes swiss cheese. Furthermore one
must do same for every last electronic appliance in the
building. Where is this $30 protector for each smoke
detector, the dish washer, each GFCI (RCD)? Why advocate a
solution that is not technically nor financially practical in
a conventional buildings? Why advocate a solution that costs
tens - maybe a hundred - times more than a 'whole house' with
single point earth ground system?

Facilities that use the 'single point adjacent connection'
concept add a layer of protection only after the 'whole house'
protector with superior earth ground is large, expensive, and
cannot be further enhanced. First they put the money where it
provides substantial protection - the 'whole house' system.
Your concept is further explained in an IEEE Transaction on
Electromagnetic Compatibility paper on 4 Nov 1998. Even
rerouting cables out of the room is part of the protection
system. Its all been done before. But who here has a facility
that requires that extreme protection after the 'whole house'
protection system has been installed? Money spent to
implement single point for each appliance is better spent
enhancing a building's earth ground system.

Common voltage point in the room is a nice idea in theory.
But the practical application is too expense for little
protection provided. Even room reconstruction may be
required. Just the plug-in protector alone is a major cost -
tens of times more - in comparison to a 'whole house'
protection system. You read that IEEE paper? What you
propose is typically installed after the 'whole house'
protection system is installed. Nothing new in your theory -
that exists only to justify those overpriced, typically
undersized, and ineffective plug-in protectors. Instead spend
less money and protect everything using the well proven method
- using a 'whole house' protector.

Well, at least you now concede that the wall receptacle has
too much impedance to earth ground - is all but disconnected
from earth. How to make that plug-in protector partially
effective? Cut its power cord very short and plug protector
into receptacle attached to mains breaker box. It will have
an earth ground connection. Plug-in protectors is still
typically undersized. But at least the undersized protector
can now earth surges; can contribute to protecting that
computer upstairs in that room.

David - again you bring up aircraft which was addressed
previously AND which is totally irrelevant to terrestrial
protection. You knew this. So why do you bring up this
nonsense again? Is that the strategy of your company? To
throw out massive, irrelevant information to confuse the
lurkers? Is that how you promote your product lines? Shame on
you.

In your example - 500 volts to what? Even a most trivial 100
amp transient would leave everything at something less than
13,000 volts relative to earth ground. 500 volts between what
and what?

Effective protection is about earthing a transient before it
can enter the building. Then protection already inside each
appliance is more than sufficient to protect each appliance.
A method so well proven that earthing and 'whole house'
protectors was standard even in communication facilities
before WWII. Why do you advocate expensive solutions that
require the room to be reconstructed for every appliance? Is
money no object? It is if you advocate plug-in protector
solutions.

David Maynard wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>> If one has the necessary background knowledge, then nothing
>> poted is contradictory.
>
> Most of what you post is contradictory babble. The remainder
> is slander.
>
>> For example David Maynard still insists that a wall receptacle
>> is earth ground because he does not even understand simple
>> principles such as wire impedance, adverse effects created by
>> sharp wire bends and splices (wires inside walls), induced
>> transient effects on adjacent wires, and what that earth
>> ground function really accomplishes.
>
> Another lie. What I explained to you is the voltage increase
> due to that impedance is essentially irrelevant to protecting
> the device as long as all incoming and outgoing lines are
> clamped to it, as there will be no excessive voltage across
> any device terminals: the only thing that matters to
> 'protecting' it.
>
> You apparently can't grasp the basic electrical fact that if
> the device sees no damaging voltage across any terminal it's
> connected to that it matters not where it is with respect to
> 'earth', or else no aircraft electrical system would ever work.
>
> And I'd love to hear w-tom explain how his '3 meter ground
> path' is absolutely essential to protecting an aircraft's
> electronics from lightning induced surges.
>
> For illustrative purposes, take a 3 terminal device. Terminal
> 1 is at 0 volts with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as
> is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect'
> suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything
> going into and out of the device is as the same potential,
> 'earth': it's 'protected'.
>
> Now imagine terminal 1 is at 500 volts, with respect to
> w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because
> we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped
> the three together. Everything going into and out of the
> device is as the same potential, 500 volts: it's 'protected'.
> Not only is it 'protected' but it is seeing exactly the same
> situation as the one clamped to 'earth': no voltage potential
> between any terminals.
>
> The difference between our 'perfect' suppressor and the real
> world one is that the three terminals will not be at the exact
> same potential, in either example. They will, however, be
> within the clamping voltage of the suppressor (again, in both
> cases) and as long as that clamp voltage is less than the
> device's voltage tolerance then it is protected, in both cases.
> And it matters not if this 3 terminal device is in your home,
> or in an aircraft at 30,000 feet where w-tom's precious 'earth'
> is more than '3 meters' away.
>
> What w-tom does is take conditions and criteria that DO matter
> to a 'whole house' protector and then fallaciously claim that
> any device, of any type, and under any condition not only works
> the same way but needs to meet the same criteria.
> ...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <40F67909.F03B301D@hotmail.com>, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com>
writes
> Previously made was this silly claim <SLAP!>

*plonk* killfile-evading morph.

Complaint made to abuse@nni.com.

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

w_tom wrote:

That you found it imperative to snip the diagrams so you could continue
promulgating this babble speaks volumes.

> Previously made was this silly claim that wire impedance
> back to earth ground is irrelevant if all wires are clamped
> together to same voltage. Problem is, was the 'wire' called
> linoleum tile, concrete floor, wall paint, baseboard heat
> pipes, and everything else inside the room also clamped to
> that single point? That means the entire room must be
> constructed to become part of that single point connection.
> If not, then the entire clamping protection is compromised by
> the room.

Absolutely not, and that's nothing but more babble.

> When a trivial 100 amp transient puts protector and adjacent
> computer at something approaching 13,000 volts, then those
> 13,000 volts find new conductors to earth. Not 500 volts.
> Thousands of volts. Is the ethernet cable connected from
> computer also via the adjacent protector? An even more
> expensive protector is required. IOW your system is
> implemented successfully when the building is constructed to
> protect transistors. But the standard home and office
> building compromises your theory. We still don't build as if
> the transistor exists.

There won't be any '13,000' volts, as I've proved before, and this too is
nothing but another of your self invented babbles.

> In theory, the 'single point adjacent connection' concept
> works. In reality, it becomes swiss cheese. Furthermore one
> must do same for every last electronic appliance in the
> building.

No, one 'mustn't'

> Where is this $30 protector for each smoke
> detector, the dish washer, each GFCI (RCD)? Why advocate a
> solution that is not technically nor financially practical in
> a conventional buildings? Why advocate a solution that costs
> tens - maybe a hundred - times more than a 'whole house' with
> single point earth ground system?

Babble based on fallacious babble.


> Facilities that use the 'single point adjacent connection'

For one, we're not talking about "facilities." Another example of you
misapplying what 'might' be valid in one instance to all.

> concept add a layer of protection only after the 'whole house'
> protector

<shock> You mean they use these things you've been saying are absolutely
useless and promulgated only by morons, liars, cheats, and charlatans? My,
my, my.


> with superior earth ground is large, expensive, and
> cannot be further enhanced.

It isn't a matter of 'cannot be further enhanced'. A whole house protector
has it's limits of applicability and appropriate use, just as anything in
the real world does.

> First they put the money where it
> provides substantial protection - the 'whole house' system.
> Your concept is further explained in an IEEE Transaction on
> Electromagnetic Compatibility paper on 4 Nov 1998. Even
> rerouting cables out of the room is part of the protection
> system. Its all been done before. But who here has a facility
> that requires that extreme protection after the 'whole house'
> protection system has been installed?

If you don't know, and you don't, then you shouldn't make blanket assertions.

> Money spent to
> implement single point for each appliance is better spent
> enhancing a building's earth ground system.

Typical "false choice" logic fallacy that you so enjoy and routinely employ.

No one ever suggested a 'protector' for each appliance, just YOU.

> Common voltage point in the room is a nice idea in theory.

Works too.

> But the practical application is too expense for little
> protection provided.

Quite inexpensive and the protection is as complete as a 'whole house'
protector, for the appliance protected.

Better, in fact, as the clamp voltage is lower, which is why reputable
'whole house' protector dealers recommend them for sensitive equipment in
addition to their 'whole house' product.

Plus, the 'whole house' protector isn't nearly as effective on local surges
(the reason you keep falsely claiming they never happen).

> Even room reconstruction may be
> required.

LOL

Only if one is trying to do a proper 'whole house' system.

> Just the plug-in protector alone is a major cost -
> tens of times more - in comparison to a 'whole house'
> protection system.

That is a plain lie.

> You read that IEEE paper? What you
> propose is typically installed after the 'whole house'
> protection system is installed.

"Typically?" You mean they use these things you've been saying are
absolutely useless and promulgated only by morons, liars, cheats, and
charlatans? My, my, my.

You mean the things you just finished saying were too expensive?

> Nothing new in your theory -

I never said anything about it was 'new'.

> that exists only to justify those overpriced, typically
> undersized, and ineffective plug-in protectors. Instead spend
> less money and protect everything using the well proven method
> - using a 'whole house' protector.

Except you just finished saying they were 'typically' used WITH a 'whole
house' protector.

> Well, at least you now concede that the wall receptacle has
> too much impedance to earth ground - is all but disconnected
> from earth.

I can't tell if that blatant falsehood is another lie or if you're just
plain stupid.

> How to make that plug-in protector partially
> effective?

Use it as it is for fully effective.

> Cut its power cord very short and plug protector
> into receptacle attached to mains breaker box. It will have
> an earth ground connection. Plug-in protectors is still
> typically undersized.

Might be after YOU get though screwing it up.

> But at least the undersized protector
> can now earth surges;

Works fine as it is.

> can contribute to protecting that
> computer upstairs in that room.

There went your precious 'earth' again.

> David - again you bring up aircraft which was addressed
> previously AND which is totally irrelevant to terrestrial
> protection.

Electronics behave the same whether 'terrestrial' located or in an aircraft.

> You knew this. So why do you bring up this
> nonsense again? Is that the strategy of your company? To
> throw out massive, irrelevant information to confuse the
> lurkers? Is that how you promote your product lines? Shame on
> you.

I see you've fallen back into describing yourself again.

> In your example - 500 volts to what?

Look in the diagram. Oh, wait. You snipped it out. I wonder why? Could it
be so you can ask stupid questions like that?

> Even a most trivial 100
> amp transient would leave everything at something less than
> 13,000 volts relative to earth ground.

Yes, "something less than 13,000 volts relative to earth ground." A LOT less.

> 500 volts between what
> and what?

Look in the diagram. Oh, wait. You snipped it out. I wonder why? Could it
be so you can ask stupid questions like that?

Here's a hint: It was in relation to YOUR 'WHOLE HOUSE' protector, dummy.


> Effective protection is about earthing a transient before it
> can enter the building.

That's true for a whole house protector who's principle of operation IS
that. It is NOT the operating principle of a plug-in protector.

You're employing what's called a circular argument: I arbitrarily define
this as that, so that is necessary to this.


> Then protection already inside each
> appliance is more than sufficient to protect each appliance.

That's just a blanket assertion, false one I might add, with no
substantiation whatsoever.

> A method so well proven that earthing and 'whole house'
> protectors was standard even in communication facilities
> before WWII.

I don't live in "communication facilities" and 'whole house' earth
protectors were NOT 'standard' in homes before W.W.II, nor are they
'standard' today.

Another example of how you attempt to mislead with inapplicable babble.

> Why do you advocate expensive solutions that
> require the room to be reconstructed for every appliance? Is
> money no object? It is if you advocate plug-in protector
> solutions.

Common smear tactic: to pose false choice questions composed of lies and
misrepresentations. But I see you've embellished the approach by adding
absurdity and babble to the mix.

>
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>w_tom wrote:
>>
>>> If one has the necessary background knowledge, then nothing
>>>poted is contradictory.
>>
>>Most of what you post is contradictory babble. The remainder
>>is slander.
>>
>>
>>> For example David Maynard still insists that a wall receptacle
>>>is earth ground because he does not even understand simple
>>>principles such as wire impedance, adverse effects created by
>>>sharp wire bends and splices (wires inside walls), induced
>>>transient effects on adjacent wires, and what that earth
>>>ground function really accomplishes.
>>
>>Another lie. What I explained to you is the voltage increase
>>due to that impedance is essentially irrelevant to protecting
>>the device as long as all incoming and outgoing lines are
>>clamped to it, as there will be no excessive voltage across
>>any device terminals: the only thing that matters to
>>'protecting' it.
>>
>>You apparently can't grasp the basic electrical fact that if
>>the device sees no damaging voltage across any terminal it's
>>connected to that it matters not where it is with respect to
>>'earth', or else no aircraft electrical system would ever work.
>>
>>And I'd love to hear w-tom explain how his '3 meter ground
>>path' is absolutely essential to protecting an aircraft's
>>electronics from lightning induced surges.
>>
>>For illustrative purposes, take a 3 terminal device. Terminal
>>1 is at 0 volts with respect to w-tom's precious 'earth', as
>>is terminal 2 and 3 because we'll postulate a 'perfect'
>>suppressor that has clamped the three together. Everything
>>going into and out of the device is as the same potential,
>>'earth': it's 'protected'.
>>
>>Now imagine terminal 1 is at 500 volts, with respect to
>>w-tom's precious 'earth', as is terminal 2 and 3 because
>>we'll postulate a 'perfect' suppressor that has clamped
>>the three together. Everything going into and out of the
>>device is as the same potential, 500 volts: it's 'protected'.
>>Not only is it 'protected' but it is seeing exactly the same
>>situation as the one clamped to 'earth': no voltage potential
>>between any terminals.
>>
>>The difference between our 'perfect' suppressor and the real
>>world one is that the three terminals will not be at the exact
>>same potential, in either example. They will, however, be
>>within the clamping voltage of the suppressor (again, in both
>>cases) and as long as that clamp voltage is less than the
>>device's voltage tolerance then it is protected, in both cases.
>>And it matters not if this 3 terminal device is in your home,
>>or in an aircraft at 30,000 feet where w-tom's precious 'earth'
>>is more than '3 meters' away.
>>
>>What w-tom does is take conditions and criteria that DO matter
>>to a 'whole house' protector and then fallaciously claim that
>>any device, of any type, and under any condition not only works
>>the same way but needs to meet the same criteria.
>>...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

plonk plonk plonk

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news:
40F7E2D9.5B8FB242@hotmail.com...
> Blanket denials speculated by David Maynard don't prove
> anything. He provides no underlying theory, no experimental

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Harry" <A@A.A> wrote in message
news:qgpqe091dmgd2gec9da90ljcpgkoojs42a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:10:40 +0100, Bagpuss
> <rich.bagpuss.ard.hal.bagusss.ford@low.orbit> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:47:28 +0100, Lem <lem@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >>Am I being too complacent?
> >
> >I've never used one. I've never had a surge blow anything either. My
> >next door neigbour as one for her PC, but makes SFA difference. Of
> >course in our house the fuse box has one of those quick trip over
> >fueses where even if a light bulb blows you have to reset the trip
> >switch, but even then its only ever the light bulb circuit that trips.
>
> We are the same with regard to the fuse box tripping out.
>
> I do have surge protectors on my PC equipment. For an extra few quid
> it seemed a good safety measure.
>
> Chances of a power surge are probably 5000 to 1. But wouldnt you feel
> silly if you were that 5000th person?
>
> At then end of the day its your call. Do you feel lucky? Just how many
> thunderstorms are we having compared with last year, and the year
> before?

Hi Harry!

Where are you located? UK? Australia?

Hope you don't have as many thunder/lightning storms as we do here in Tampa,
Florida in the good old US of A.

It's like constant artillery fire around here.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: uk.comp.vendors,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"John McGaw" <nowhere@at.all> wrote in message
news:2TdHc.18827$285.1164@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Lem" <lem@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:9520A0A2FB83791F3A2@130.133.1.4...
> > Are surge protectors on the main power supply actually needed in
> > the UK?
> >
> > here in the UK we have few overhead mains power lines and have a
> > relatively steady mains power supply when compared to many other
> > countries (including the US).
> >
> > However there seem to be very many surge protector products
> > advertised for sale in the UK (Argos, Maplins, etc).
> >
> > I am quite sure it is not bad practice to use a surge protector but
> > in fact I have never known anyone who has has a problem from a
> > surge coming in through the power supply.
> >
> > So personally I don't bother using a surge protector on my PC.
> >
> > Am I being too complacent?
>
> Do you live in an area where lightning is frequent? A lightning strike
that
> is merely _near_ to an underground utility circuit can induce damaging
> voltages into them meaning that your power mains, telephone, and cable TV
> are all possible carriers. Admittedly there is no place in the UK that
I've
> heard of that experiences the sort of storms that ravage parts of the USA,
> Flordia comes immediately to mind, but if you ever do have even one event
> then a small investment in protection would be invaluable.
> --
> John McGaw
> [Knoxville, TN, USA]
> http://johnmcgaw.com

Hi John!

I am glad to see someone finally point out that overhead power lines and
phone lines are much more apt to cause problems with lightning surges than
are their underground equivalents.

And also point out that amount of lightning strikes varies with geography.

I don't know what it's like in Tennessee, but we sure have plenty in the
Tampa, Lakeland, Daytona Beach across Florida as you point out.