Re: Power Conditioners?
- From: bud-- <remove.budnews@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:38:32 -0600
westom1@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jan 31, 11:53 am, Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Shucks, the answer - maybe the only possible answer that isn't yet
another repetition of 'w's rant - is the existence of a well organized
plot by the consumer electronics industry. All of those Associations
have secret agendas.
Remember that manufacturer
specification that claims surge protection? No plug-in manufacturer
will make that protection claim. Did Bud again forget to mention
that?
w can't google specs for himself because the institution only lets w look at newsgroups - the internet has dirty pictures.
But the village idiot ignores specs I provided in this thread.
In the IEEE citation, Page 42 Figure 8, a plug-in protector earths
a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV.
If the village idiot could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE guide says in this example:
- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
- w's favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection.
It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example damages the second TV.
The NIST guide (Bud's second citation) defines plug-in protectors
as an easiest solution. Then NIST says why the easiest (and more
expensive) solution is not effective protection.
Again the village idiot can not read.
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
Myths claim a protector suppresses, absorbs, or stops a surge. Bud
will eventually claim a plug-in protector makes surge energy magically
disappear.
Repeating for the village idiot:
"With minimal reading ability w could find in the IEEE guide that plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING (limiting) the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work by stopping, absorbing or magic. And they do not work primarily by earthing. (The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.) (Read the guide starting pdf page 40)."
Where is that plug-in protector's dedicated short connection to
earth? Where does the manufacturer even discuss earthing? Two
damning questions that quickly identify ineffective protectors.
w has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must directly 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, not earthing. But w’s religious blinders prevent him from reading conflicting ideas.
Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w trolls google-groups for "surge" to paste in his religious tract to convert the heathens. Owen summoned the troll.
IEEE repeats same requirements in numerous IEEE
Standards (where IEEE makes recommendations) such as their Red Book,
Green Book, and Emerald Book.
The Emerald Book (which is about protecting "sensitive electronic equipment") recognizes plug-in suppressors as effective. Yet another source w's religious blinders prevent him from reading.
Protectors from numerous responsible
companies including Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Square D, Keison,
Intermatic, and General Electric.
Cuttler Hammer, Leviton, Intermatic and GE all make plug-in suppressors.
For its best service panel suppressor SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [surge suppressor] devices at the point of use."
Siemens says "Point of use products provide a second line of defense. Homeowners can reinforce the protection provided by a point-of-entry protection device by installing surge protectors (strips) and low-voltage surge suppressors."
Why does your telco use only 'whole house' protectors in every
facility? Why do telcos not use protectors recommended by Bud?
Gee - why not. Maybe because a telephone switch is high amp, hard wired, and has tens of thousands of phone circuits that would have to go through the suppressor.
And all I recommend is accurate information.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
And the statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
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.
Never answered - 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"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?
Why no answers w????
--
bud--
.
- References:
- Re: Power Conditioners?
- From: westom1
- Re: Power Conditioners?
- Prev by Date: Re: Should we listen to Wagner ?
- Next by Date: Re: Should we listen to Wagner ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Power Conditioners?
- Next by thread: Re: Power Conditioners?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
