Maker Pro
Maker Pro

How fast is an MOV? Really?

K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
Some one edged me to post this for you. It has been decided to
be a perfect pictation on most of the material you post.

Ah, you admit to having no intelligence yourself. That's a start.
 
A

Archimedes' Lever

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ah, you admit to having no intelligence yourself. That's a start.


I thought that it fit you rather well. Bwuahahahahaha!
 
B

bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
westom said:
More scary pictures of the human safety threat; including the NC
fire marshal who explains why these ineffective protectors fail:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w ignores what his hanford link says. It is about "some older model"
power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449
that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. The "fire marshal"
said the same thing.

There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a
problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in
effect since 1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had
a UL label.

It is the usual rant from w against plug-in suppressors. Lacking valid
technical arguments he resorts to scary pictures.
Only more responsible manufacturers
make these 'whole house' protectors.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
But from Martzloff, who was the NIST surge guru:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."

Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltages from developing
between power and signal wires. Martzloff, using insurance data,
suggests high voltage between power and signal wires is the major cause
of equipment damage.
General Electric, Cutler-
Hammer, Intermatic, Keison, Square D, Siemens, and Leviton are just a
few.

All these "responsible" manufacturers except SquareD make plug-in
suppressors.

SquareD says for their "best" service panel suppressor "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."

Still never seen - anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
 
W

westom

Jan 1, 1970
0
You, i am sure, realise that you are doing two things here; trying to
"enlighten" a religious nutter, and trying to dispell the myths
propagated by said religious nutter (westom).  

The naive take cheap shots rather than explain technical facts.
Good reasons why telcos don't waste money on bud's products. Good
reasons why all telcos all over the world use 'whole house' protectors
and better earthing. Telcos typically suffer 100 surges with each
thunderstorm and must never have damage. How often is your town
without phone service for four days while they replace the surge
damaged switch? Why would they spend more money on bud's products
that are ineffective, can even contribute to damage of adjacent
electronics, and still require the 'whole house' protector? They
don't.

If responding with electrical facts, then you would have learned
this. Instead you can only attack the messenger? If you think bud is
right, then post those manufacturer specs that claim protection. You
cannot for the same reason that bud also routinely posts insults.
Even the manufacturer does not claim that protection. Where are those
numeric specs that claim protection? No insult to you even though you
deserve it. Just facts that you cannot provide.
 
B

Baron

Jan 1, 1970
0
JosephKK said:
You, I am sure, realise that you are doing two things here; trying to
"enlighten" a religious nutter, and trying to dispell the myths
propagated by said religious nutter (westom). The first is usually
futile, and the second often thankless. Thank you for whatever
progress you make on either.
.

Oh no ! He's back... I thought I'd kill filed him already !
 
B

bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
Poor w. Nobody ever agrees with him.
The naive take cheap shots rather than explain technical facts.

w [formerly known as w_tom] posts religious dogma, not technical facts.

Facts:
- The IEEE has a guide on surge protection that has only 2 examples of
protection - both of which use plug-in suppressors.
- The NIST has a guide on surge protection that says plug-in suppressors
are "the easiest solution".
- And the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer
install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
- The IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".
- All of w's favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors except
SquareD.
- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".

And the #1 fact - w has never provided a source that agrees with him
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn't anyone in the
known universe agree with you w????

If you think bud is
right, then post those manufacturer specs that claim protection.

I have provided specs often. So have others. w just ignores anything
that does not fit in with his religious beliefs.
 
W

westom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Poor w. Nobody ever agrees with him.

The plug-in protector promoter again refuses to post a single
manufacturer spec that claims that protection. Even his own citations
show plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively
through an adjacent TV. Same reason why telcos waste no money on his
protectors. They need effective protection - not myths. So bud posts
insults.

bud even accused Norma of lying. On 27 Dec 2008 in alt.fiftyplus
entitled "The Power Outage" describes the danger of power strip
protectors:
Today, the cable company came to replace a wire. Well the cable
man pulled a wire and somehow yanked loose their "ground" wire.
The granddaughter on the computer yelled and ran because sparks
and smoke were coming from the power surge strip.

Bud said this cannot happen even though scary pictures and other's
testimony show this threat. Even a fire marshal explains why. Of
course. Protectors sold to maximize profits are undersized. Not one
plug-in manufacturer claims to stop and absorb surges as bud claims.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So bud posts
more insults - and denials of those scary pictures - potential house
fires that most every fire company has seen.

Bud says his grossly overpriced protectors will stop and absorb what
three miles of sky could not. Then posts insults rather then
manufacturer protection specs. bud posts only what he understands.
Same propaganda technique also used by Rush Limbaugh. Insults
manipulate the naive. Only an informed consumers wants manufacturer
specs. Bud cannot provide protection numbers that do not exist.
Smoke, sparks, and burning are serious problems with plug-in
protectors that will somehow stop and absorb what three miles of sky
could not. Bud's denials are mockery, half truths, and insults. Bud
even called Norma a liar. Profits are at risk.

Meanwhile, where does bud answer the OPs question. bud's job is to
promote plug-in protectors. bud is only here to attack anyone who
posts technical facts.
 
B

bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
westom said:
The plug-in protector promoter

I promote only accurate information to counter w's religious dogma.
again refuses to post a single
manufacturer spec that claims that protection.

I have often posted specs. w just ignores them and repeats the lie.

And a 10 year old could google for specs.

Apparently w can't google specs himself because the institution only
lets w look at newsgroups - the internet has dirty pictures.
Even his own citations
show plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively
through an adjacent TV.

It is another of w's favorite lies. A plug-in suppressor in the IEEE
guide example does not damage a second TV.

If his religious blinders would let him, w 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.

The example (pdf page 42) is from an excellent IEEE guide on surge
protection:
<http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf>
The other guide that I often post is less technical and from the US-NIST:
So bud posts
insults.

Poor sensitive w is insulted by reality.
bud even accused Norma of lying.

Poor w has frequent hallucinations.
Not one
plug-in manufacturer claims to stop and absorb surges as bud claims.

Another frequent hallucination.

But because plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing, the
village idiot thinks they work by stopping and absorbing. If his
religious blinders would let him, w could read in the IEEE guide how
plug-in suppressors actually work.

Neither manufacturers or I say suppressors work by stopping or absorbing.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

w's statement of his religious belief in earthing.

Unfortunately for w, the IEEE guide explains that plug-in suppressors
work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing. And they do not work by stopping or absorbing.
The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting
pdf page 40).
Bud says his grossly overpriced protectors will stop and absorb what
three miles of sky could not.

The hallucination returns. Just say no to drugs.
bud is only here to attack anyone who
posts technical facts.

w is only here to spread his religious belief in earthing and protect
the universe from the scourge of plug-in suppressors.

w posts no technical facts. Never seen - anyone that agrees with w
that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

And w has still never explained these technical facts:
- The IEEE guide has only 2 examples of protection - both of which use
plug-in suppressors.
- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
- The NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer
install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
- The IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".
- All of w's favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors except
SquareD.
- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".
 
W

westom

Jan 1, 1970
0
And where is some technical data to back up your claims?

Read and addres many previous posts that include technical data.
Including Page 42 Figure 8 from bud's citation and the quoted
statements from his NIST citation that say, for example:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Where is earth ground for bud's protectors? Cited was where surge
energy gets harmlessly dissipated. bud's solution has no such
earthing, claims that energy will magically disappear, and well, where
does bud even provide one manufacturer spec that claims protection?
He does not because the manufacture makes no such claims. Even his
own citations should how plug-in protectors can even contribute to
appliance damage.

Just a sample of numerous previously posted facts which should have
read before posting. Even bud's citations state why telcos don't waste
money on plug-in protectors and why telcos so carefully earth 'whole
house' protectors. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground as defined even 100 years ago. No earth ground (ie plug-in
protectors) means no effective protection. bud refused to provide
even one protection spec. And for good reason. No plug-in protector
claims to protect from the typically destructive surge.

Which is not what the OP was asking and which was answered by this
poster before a sales promoter started his usual insults, myths, and
lies. OP asked about MOV's response time which is so fast that even 2
inch lead impedance affects those measurements.
 
B

bud--

Jan 1, 1970
0
westom said:
Read and addres many previous posts that include technical data.
Including Page 42 Figure 8 from bud's citation and the quoted
statements from his NIST citation that say, for example:

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.
Where is earth ground for bud's protectors?

With minimal intelligence poor w could read in the IEEE guide how
plug-in suppressors work.
Cited was where surge
energy gets harmlessly dissipated.

The IEEE guide explains that earthing occurrs elsewhere.
bud's solution has no such
earthing, claims that energy will magically disappear

It is only magic for w. Everyone else can figure out how plug-in
suppressors work
Even bud's citations state why telcos don't waste
money on plug-in protectors

Gee, why wouldn't a high amp hard wired telco switch use a plug-in
suppressor which thousands of signal wires would have to go through.
That's a tough one.
A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground ... No earth ground
means no effective protection.

w's religious mantras protect him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

Never travel in an airplane. They seldom drag an earthing chain while
flying, leaving their avionics totally exposed to lightning.
OP asked about MOV's response time which is so fast that even 2
inch lead impedance affects those measurements.

w then turned the thread into a diatribe on earthing and the evils of
plug-in suppressors, just like he obsessive-compulsively does whenever
anyone says "surge".

According to w, you cannot have protection at a device because it would
not be earthed and "no earth ground means no effective protection". So
many stupid people here thought you could protect a device.


For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both 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 agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

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?
- 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 do w's "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"?
 
W

westom

Jan 1, 1970
0
What part of bringing your own hard data instead of assailing others
did you not understand?  

Provided is data from bud's citations that show how plug-in
protectors can contribute to electronics damage. And data from
numerous other professional sources who also state what provides
protection. Why do you waste bandwidth with false accusations? Even
the NIST is quite blunt about what provides protection:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Could that be any simpler even for an English major? Why do you
ignore what professional after professional state?

You claim telco surge protection is unimpressive? Every telco CO
everywhere in the world is connected to overhead wires all over town.
A typically thunderstorm means about 100 surges. So how many times
has your town been without phone service for four days while they
replace that computer? How often does this damage occur everywhere in
the world? You call that 'less than pleasing'? Where is your grasp
of reality? Telco switching computers everywhere in the world can
suffer maybe 100 surges during every thunderstorm and must never
suffer damage even from direct lightning strikes. But somehow you
*know* a plug-in protector (that costs tens or 100 times more money)
is somehow better? Amazing how some *know* without first learning.

Read what Norma saw (and we have seen this often). On 27 Dec 2008
in alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage":
Today, the cable company came to replace a wire. Well the cable
man pulled a wire and somehow yanked loose their "ground" wire.
The granddaughter on the computer yelled and ran because sparks
and smoke were coming from the power surge strip.

Or numerous examples of potential house fires (scary pictures)
because plug-in protectors are doing only what their specs claim:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm

Most every fire company has seen this threat. And yet you
otherwise? More *knowledge* without first learning?

bud even misrepresents Martzloff. A point so important that
Martzloff defines plug-in (point of connection) protectors in a first
conclusion of his 1994 IEEE paper:
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.

Plug-in protectors even contributing to damage of the adjacent
electronics? How curious. bud's IEEE citation Page 42 Figure 8 also
shows a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively
through the adjacent TV. But you *konw* otherwise by not first
learning? At what point do you deal with the science rather than
attack the messenger?

We learned this stuff even by tracing surge damage and replacing
damaged semiconductors. We traced surge current through a network of
powered off computers by replacing damaged ICs. Damage because two
plug-in protectors earthed a surge destructively through those
computers. How many surge damaged electronics have you fixed by first
*learning* how damage occurred? There is a difference between two of
us. I did this stuff. You somehow *know* without even a single fact,
experience, or citation.

Telcos earth 'whole house' protectors and waste no money on plug-in
protectors. Telcos have effective protection - despite your false
accusation. Why? A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. That plug-in protector with no earthing ... it claims
protection in its numeric specs? Of course not as you demonstrated.
Having trouble with facts? Then reply with those numeric specs that
define protection? You did not because you cannot.

While posting false accusations, you did not even answer the OP's
question. Define the speed of MOVs. To know which surge protectors
are effective means you can easily answer the OP's question. With
insufficient technical knowledge, you did not even answer the OP’s
question.

MOVs are so fast that impedance in its 2 inch lead can affect that
measurement. Of course, you know why? Impedance explains why
effective protectors make that less than 10 foot connection to earth.
But again, another technical fact. When do you post even one?

Another post chock full of hard data. How will you respond?
Obviously not with any supporting facts and numbers. Where is that
plug-in protector spec that claims protection? You were asked for
only one simple fact. You could not even provide that? As usual, the
technically naive must attack the messenger. Where is that spec? How
do you *know* when even the manufacturer will not make that claim?
Junk science is alive and well. bud needs you to protect those profit
margins.
 
W

westom

Jan 1, 1970
0
You destroy your claims by your very own citations:  

Somehow your protector will stop and absorb what three miles of sky
could not. Somehow you know what the manufacturer will not claim in
its own specs. Somehow you know fire companies most everywhere did
not understand the smoke and sparks spit by plug-in protectors.
Somehow you know that 100 years of surge protection by connecting to
earth is wrong. And somehow you know but need not even post one
'why'. So who are you - Rush Limbaugh? I get it. You are right
because mockery is proof and because you are you.

Therefore telcos that earth protectors to have no damage for the
past 100 years are wrong. Therefore Norma never really had a
protector spitting smoke and sparks. Remaining technically ignorant
and attacking the messenger makes life so much simpler.
 
Top