Re: Surge / Ground / Lightning

phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv bud-- <remove.budnews@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>

Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in a guide from 
the IEEE at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
Simpler information is in a guide from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

> | For the SquareD 'best' service panel suppressor - SDSB1175C
> | - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional 
> | protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
> | - The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors
"is 
> | used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device."
> 
> And do you understand the scientific basis why this is so?  I doubt it.

According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment 
most frequently damaged by lightning is
     computers with a modem connection
     TVs, VCRs and similar equipment  (presumably with cable TV 
connections).
  All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

This suppressor includes, in the unit, ****ts for cable and phone. That 
limits the voltages at the entrance point. You can still get problems 
downstream. One possibility is a very near strike producing direct 
induction with wiring acting as a long wire or loop antenna.

A rather common recommendation is to use a power service suppressor to 
provide gross limitation and a plug-in suppressor at "sensitive 
electronics" particularly with signal and power connections.

> 
> | For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
> | - The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic 
> | devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video 
> | equipment, televisions, and computers."
> | 
> | It appears none of w_'s companies has a high reputation.
> 
> Or maybe it's a different type of suppressor.  Did you even look? 

The differences have absolutely no relevance for the response to w_.

But this one is a plug-onto-the-bus unit with suppression only for power 
wires.

A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and 
signal wires. To do that you need a short ground wire from the signal 
entrance protector to the ground at the power service (or the combined 
suppressor above). SquareD has no idea what is in your house.

There are other possible sources of damage a power-service-only 
suppressor does nothing about, including high voltage between conductor 
and ****eld in cable wire, which is not limited by the cable entrance 
ground block.

> Sadly,
> when marketing gets in control, they tend to hide the im****ant
engineering
> and scientific details.  It even happens with companies like Square-D.

There is a major difference between the units justifying the different 
warrantee coverage. Not that that has any particular relevance to 
anything either.

> 
> Maybe you should look at the Eaton-Cutler-Hammer devices.

Maybe you should look at CH. I don't really care.

What is relevant with respect to w_ is that CH makes plug-in 
suppressors.  SquareD does not but suggests their use and limits the 
claimed protection of power-service-only suppressors.

> 
> | Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in 
> | suppressors are NOT effective. It is  w_  against the universe.
> 
> The only sources you are looking at simply give a generic list of what
kinds
> of things you might use.  There are no scientific explanations to help
you
> figure out what is needed in your particular situation for you to
achieve the
> level of protection you want.  OTOH, I have my doubts about your ability
to
> understand the science, so that may explain why they limited things to a
few
> simplistic illustrations in what is really just a "to do" guide that
does not
> cover all situations or all levels of protection.

I have read a lot of sources, including many technical papers on surges 
and surge suppression. You should have figured that out from references 
provided previously, which included several technical papers. But you 
seem to do minimal reading of reading of what others write.

You have read little on surges and have said you base your beliefs on 
your experience. Experience shows astrology works.

You suggest experts in the field "missed a lot of reality" and  "flubbed 
the experiment".

You discount the IEEE guide. It comes from the IEEE Surge Protection 
Devices Committee, was peer reviewed in the IEEE, and is aimed at 
technical people including electrical engineers. If you ever read it you 
would find "scientific explanations". You might also find "scientific 
explanations" in the technical papers I have referenced, which you 
probably have not read.

But what could -you- learn by reading what others write. There 
apparently is no expert but you.

You have never provided  a source that agrees with you on disputed issues.

-- 
bud--