Re: Panel Grounding vs. Lightning Rod Grounding

On Oct 23, 11:32 am, bud-- <budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> “Intruder alarm systems using wires between sensors and their central
> control unit can be disturbed - and damaged in severe cases - by
> lightning striking close to the house. The wires necessary for this
> type of installation extend to all points of the house and act as an
> antenna system that collects energy from the field generated by the
> lightning strike, ...

Bud forgets to mention how easy that problem is eliminated even by
protection inside panels. That thousands of volts is easily
diminished to near zero by a milliamp conductor - the neon glow lamp.
Bud has hyped a fear and ignored the solution that already makes the
problem irrelevant.

What field is far more destructive? If trying to earth a surge via
a plug-in protectors, then the safety ground wire inside Romex induces
surges on all adjacent wires. Fields from nearby strikes are easily
made irrelevant. Fields created by an earthing wire not separated
from all other wires can induce surges on those other wires. Only one
of us actually learned this stuff from both IEEE papers and
experience.

Meanwhile Martzloff describes in the very first conclusion of his
IEEE paper how a plug-in (point of connection) protector can
contribute to damage of adjacent electronics (as also demonstrated on
Page 42 Figure 8):
> Conclusion:
> 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
> show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
> even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
> present at the point of connection of appliances.

Bud likes to forget the parts that show how obscenely profitable plug-
in protectors can even contribute to electronics damage.

Why don't you guys get a room? Jeeeeze!!!
This love affair needs to go somewhere else.


"w_tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:5a312c4b-ba2c-4476-bdae-(E-Mail Removed)...
On Oct 23, 11:32 am, bud-- <budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> “Intruder alarm systems using wires between sensors and their central
> control unit can be disturbed - and damaged in severe cases - by
> lightning striking close to the house. The wires necessary for this
> type of installation extend to all points of the house and act as an
> antenna system that collects energy from the field generated by the
> lightning strike, ...

Bud forgets to mention how easy that problem is eliminated even by
protection inside panels. That thousands of volts is easily
diminished to near zero by a milliamp conductor - the neon glow lamp.
Bud has hyped a fear and ignored the solution that already makes the
problem irrelevant.

What field is far more destructive? If trying to earth a surge via
a plug-in protectors, then the safety ground wire inside Romex induces
surges on all adjacent wires. Fields from nearby strikes are easily
made irrelevant. Fields created by an earthing wire not separated
from all other wires can induce surges on those other wires. Only one
of us actually learned this stuff from both IEEE papers and
experience.

Meanwhile Martzloff describes in the very first conclusion of his
IEEE paper how a plug-in (point of connection) protector can
contribute to damage of adjacent electronics (as also demonstrated on
Page 42 Figure 8):
> Conclusion:
> 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
> show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
> even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
> present at the point of connection of appliances.

Bud likes to forget the parts that show how obscenely profitable plug-
in protectors can even contribute to electronics damage.

On Oct 23, 1:15 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 11:32 am, bud-- <budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > “Intruder alarm systems using wires between sensors and their central
> > control unit can be disturbed - and damaged in severe cases - by
> > lightning striking close to the house. The wires necessary for this
> > type of installation extend to all points of the house and act as an
> > antenna system that collects energy from the field generated by the
> > lightning strike, ...
>
> Bud forgets to mention how easy that problem is eliminated even by
> protection inside panels.
> Bud has hyped a fear and ignored the solution that already makes the
> problem irrelevant.
..
I said direct pickup was low energy and terminals "*may* not be
protected". Not all equipment is protected. I tried to cover the
sources of surge damage. Martzloff says in the NIST guide (quoted
above) direct pickup can be a problem.
..
> Meanwhile Martzloff describes in the very first conclusion of his
> IEEE paper how a plug-in (point of connection) protector can
> contribute to damage of adjacent electronics (as also demonstrated on
> Page 42 Figure 8):
..
w_ likes to forget that Martzloff said in the same technical paper
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

Martzloff says in the NIST guide plug-in suppressors are effective.

The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors are effective.

Poor w_ doesn’t think they work.

--
bud--