Re: DSL speed

w_tom wrote:

For most homes, that means at least a 10 foot earth ground rod.
Soil should be conductive (not granular like sand). Rod should be in
earth that is below the frost line and best when always moist. Since
these conditions don't always exist, then we use other solutions such
as a network of ground rods with buried internconnecting wires, a halo
ground, Ufer ground (installed so that lightning would not even cause
munitions explosions), a ground plate, etc. Notice that the water
pipe is not listed as a best ground. Best earth ground is a connection
to earth that is most conductive. This sometimes made challenging
when building also uses a well pump.

Water pipe is not listed because w_ thinks it should never be used as a grounding electrode, even though it has been required to be used for a very long time, and for a urban metal water system is the most conduuctive to earth of any electrode available at a house.

From
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/grounding_definitions.html
“Halo Grounded Ring: A grounded No. 2 wire, installed around all four walls inside a small building, at an elevation of approx. six inches below the ceiling. They are used around transmitter equipment.
How would a halo ground help?


Second, effective protection provides equipotential. Since we
cannot provide sufficient conductivity, then we also must provide
equipotential. That means earth beneath all parts of the building is
predominately at a common voltage. Some achieve this by a deep
grounding rod. Other better solutions include a halo or Ufer ground
that loops the building.

Misuse of halo again.

A Ufer/concrete encased electrode may give you equipotential depending on how much the rebar is tied together.

With a ground rod as a rule of thumb 70% of the voltage drop from a ground rod is in the first 3 feet. Assume the power system is earthed with only a ground rod. If you have a very good rod-to-earth resistance of 10 ohms and a modest 1,000A surge earth current, the voltage from the power ground bar to `absolute' earth is 10,000V. From the power/signal ground system to earth beyond 3 feet will be 7,000V or more. This can show up, for instance, in basements, like a E Z’s washing machine to a concrete floor. Or as the IEEE guide notes, at outside pad mounted compressor/condenser units.

You are not likely to get equipotential around a house.


Again, a protector being only as effective as its earthing.

The religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).


What defines effectiveness of
a protector? That single point earth ground. Therefore all utilities
must enter a building at a same point. The most conductive path to
earth being earth connected to each wire in each cable by 'less than
10 feet'.

Francois Martzloff, who wrote the NIST gide, 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 point of a "single point ground" is that entrance protectors for CATV, phone, ... be connected with a *short* wire to the conductor to the earth electrode at the power panel. With a large surge there will always be a difference from the house ground to ‘absolute’ ground. The goal is for the power and CATV and phone 'grounds' to rise together.


Another important concept - impedance. For example, wall receptacle
may be 50 feet from breaker box - even longer to earth ground. But
wall receptacle is only a safety ground; not earth ground. Wire
resistance may be less than 0.2 ohms. But wire impedance to a surge
may be 120 ohms. A trivial 100 amp surge would leave wall receptacle
at 100 x 120 or something less than 12,000 volts during a surge. If
trying to earth via that wall receptacle, well, a room is chock full
of other conductive paths. Surge currents will go elsewhere. That is
the point of Page 42 Figure 8 - the 8000 volt damaged TV.

The point of Fig.8, for anyone who can read and think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required". The failure behind the illustration is lack of a “single point ground” - the CATV entry point is too far from the power service. That is the condition at a significant percentage of houses. The IEEE says that “if the CATV, 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.”

As E Z has noted, a service panel suppressor will provide absolutely NO protection to either TV is this case.

w_ finds it impossible to understand the IEEE illustration because it conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

And there will be arc-over in panels or receptacles at about 6,000V - you won’t get 12,000V between H-N-G.



Cable company needs no protector. For better protection with lower
capacitance, the earthing connection is made with a $2 ground block
and 12 AWG wire.

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 are likely to clamp the voltage to a reasonable level.


That unacceptable failure then promotes sales among the naive. To be
electrically equal to a 'whole house' protector, the plug-in protector
must be 3000 joules or higher. No wonder current technology
protectors create these scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ denies his own hanford link. It talks about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449. That was 1998.

It is a lie that “current technology protectors create these scary pictures.”

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

Ineffective protector will avoid all discussion
about earthing when earthing is THE most critical component of an
effective protection 'system'. Protector being only as effective as
its earth ground.

The religious belief in earthing #2. The IEEE explains plug–in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING, not earthing.


Notice how Bud will even resort to insult to protect that massive
profit margin on protectors that don't even claim to protect from the
typically destructive type of surge. Notice that he follows me
everywhere trolling to confuse others. Plug-in protector
manufacturers have him to promoted confusion and myths.

"To quote w_: 'It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

I resort to insults - w_ just called me a stodge for manufacturers.

Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google groups for "surge" to paste in his religious tract to convert the heathens. Unfortunately some, like E Z, remain pagans.


w_’s latest epistle is sometimes very good, sometimes garbage. But almost entirely irrelevant to plug–in suppressors. The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work.

w_ has still not found a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.

But both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

Still never explained:
- 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".
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."


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 - hanford, IEEE guide.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re:
    ... No protector is required to earth coax cable surges. ... The center conductor is not. ... What, other than a surge protector, stops transients on the center ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Modem problem
    ... Appreciate why lightning may have found a path to earth via your ... The telephone line already has a superior protector ... a better earth ground. ... So how was a modem damaged - internal or external? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: MOVs and surge suppressors
    ... It does not know about 'ground' or 'earth'. ... The current at a plug-in suppressor is limited by the impedance of the branch circuit wiring to a surge. ... Therefore protector was at 8000 volts on all wires. ... Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Power Conditioners?
    ... The principles that Franklin demonstrated resulted in the lightning rod. ... Does a lightning rod, brought to earth at the house common earth ground, ... house' protector diverts a direct lightning strike to ground. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Band Uisng Tripplite Line Conditioners/surge-suppressor
    ... But put a 100 amp surge on that same Romex wire. ... approaching 12,000 volts, it is not earth ground. ... Therefore voltage increases to dissipate more energy ... Cable TV needs no surge protector. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
Loading