Re: Soon to arrive my HDTV

w_tom wrote:
> On Mar 27, 1:21 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>  For accurate information on surges and surge protection try:http://
> www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversio...
>> - "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE
guide
>> for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
>> communication circuits"  published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
>> dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the
US).
>> And
also:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
>> - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
>> appliances in your home"  published by the US National Institute of
>> Standards and Technology in 2001
> 
>   My faithful troll has arrived.
 >
Being evangelical in his belief in earthing,  w_  trolls  google-groups 
for "surge" to paste in his religious tract to convert the heathens. 
Dave said the magic word.
>
 >  Now let's see that the IEEE
> and NIST really say.  Both are quite blunt about what provides
> protection - earth ground.  From the NIST citation:
 >
What does the NIST guide *really* say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
> 
>   The other citation shows what happens when a surge protector is too
> close to appliances and too far from earth ground.  Surge is earth,
> 8000 volts destructively, via the adjacent TV.  Surge will find earth
> ground.  Voltage will rise as necessary so that current will flow to
> earth.  On Page 42 Figure 8, the surge voltage increases so that 8000
> volts across TV2 was the path to earth.
> 
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable 
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in 
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With 
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. The plug-in 
suppressor at TV1 decreased the surge voltage at TV2 by 2,000V  It is 
simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes 
to the damage at TV2.

But the point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can 
think, is "to protect TV2, a second multi****t protector located at TV2 
is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a 
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The 
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power 
service ‘ground’ is too long (as I wrote in my 1st post). The IEEE guide 
says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is 
to use a multi****t protector."
>
> Bud cannot provide any specs because those
> protection specs do not exist.  For maybe the 400th time - Bud, where
> are those specifications?
 >
Specs were in my 1st post and ignored by w_, as usual.


w_’s religious blinders only let him see words about earthing. Everyone 
is for earthing. but 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.

w_ never answers simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in 
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest 
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the 
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say “the only effective way of protecting the 
equipment is to use a multi****t protector."
- Where is the link to a 30,000A and 590Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
Poor w_ can’t answer the questions because what he says is nonsense.

-- 
bud--