Re: Soon to arrive my HDTV

w_tom wrote:
> 
> Impedance is different from
> resistance.
..
w_’s explanation of impedance is rather unclear.
A surge is a very short event - a lightning induced surge may be over in 
100 microseconds. As a result, surge currents are essentially a high 
frequency. The inductance of a wire is much more im****tant than 
resistance at high frequencies. Impedance combines inductance and 
resistance. Because inductance dominates, increasing the size of a wire, 
for example, does not lower the impedance of the wire much for surges.

But the IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by 
earthing a surge.  The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere in the 
system. They also do not work by absorbing or stopping. They work by 
clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the 
suppressor. That is for all surges, including strong surges produced by 
lightning. The impedance of the supply wiring greatly limits the 
current, and thus the energy, that can reach a plug-in suppressor. Read 
the guide starting pdf page 40.

Plug-in suppressors violate  w_’s religious belief in earthing.  Poor 
w_ can not understand that earthing occurs, just not primarily through 
the plug-in suppressor.
..
> Same point is demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8.  A
> protector too far from earth ground therefore earthed a surge, 8000
> volts destructively, via TV2.
..
The lie repeated. The suppressor at TV1 causes no damage at TV2 - it 
reduces the voltage at TV2 from 10,000V to 8,000V. 
   The point for anyone who can think is "to protect TV2, a second 
multi****t protector located at TV2 is required."

And in this IEEE guide example, a service panel suppressor would provide 
NO protection. The guide says in the case shown "the only effective way 
of protecting the equipment is to use a multi****t [plug–in] protector."
..
>   Any protector that explodes (or its indicator light re****ts same
> failure) is so pathetically designed that these scary pictures are
> considered failure created by humans and why UL1449 was created in
> 1985:
>  http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
..
As the hanford link makes clear, UL1449 was revised to require thermal 
disconnects for overheating MOVs. That was in 1998. None of w_’s links 
says there is a problem with suppressors made since 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all  w_ has are pathetic scare 
tactics.
..
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
And the required religious mantra.
If w_ could only think.  The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors don’t 
work primarily by earthing. The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere.
	

Sources provided by  w_  that agree with him that plug-in suppressors 
are NOT effective - *still ZERO*. Even on the internet poor w_ can’t 
find anyone who agrees with him.

Simple questions answered - *still ZERO*.
- 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.
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an 
effective surge protection device?


For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides - both say plug-in 
suppressors are effective.

-- 
bud--