|
Posted by bud-- on October 16, 2006, 12:51 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>
> Protectors that are UL protected created problems demonstrated by
> scary pictures:
The usual horror pictures.
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
For those who can read, the Hanford link specifically references the
new UL standard with thermal disconnect as a fix for overheating MOVs.
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
> http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
The 2nd and 3rd links are the same. Both give guidelines for using
plug-in suppressors
None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective or that they should not
be used or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
This link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which you say doesn't work.
>
> Meanwhile, the lurker is invited to look at Figure 8 in Bud's
> citation. TVs are damaged due to a plug-in protector and defective
> earthing. Bud's IEEE paper warns about how plug-in protectors can even
> contribute to adjacent TV damage. TVs at 8000+ volts are damaged.
> Plug-in protector in figure 8 (even with UL approval and without
> earthing) contributes to TV damage. Just another reason why protectors
> are best located at the service entrance.
>
For those who can read, Fig 8 is part of the IEEE explanation of how
SREs work. For those who can read, the IEEE guide recognizes plug-in
surge suppressors as effective.
> IEEE does not make recommendation in Bud's papers.
To take only one example: the IEEE guide, chapter 6, "SPECIFIC
PROTECTION EXAMPLES" shows 2 examples of surge protection. Both use
SREs. Saying the guides take a lot of space describing, but not
recommending plug-in surge protectors is sutpid. Repeatedly making
this claim requires willful stupidity.
> IEEE makes
> recommendations in standards. Standard contradict what Bud claims:
> IEEE Red Book (Std 141) ....
> IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) ....
And you have to be stupid to think the IEEE would publish a guide to
the general public that is not consistent with the IEEE color books.
Maybe if you tried real hard you could understand the IEEE and NIST
guides
> No earth ground means no effective protection. Even an open switch
> will not stop or block such surges. In direct contradiction to what
> Bud posts - IEEE recommends the most critical component in any
> protection system - earth ground.
Your religious views about earthing are nott relevant. As
described numerous times, the IEEE guide clearly describes plug-in
suppressors as CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground
at the protector. Earthing is described as secondary. As you seem to
forget, the IEEE guide was published by the IEEE.
The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0
bud--
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map