Power Conditioner Recommendations

[JerryLove]

If a thermal fuse fails faster than the MOV, then a house fire does not result. Meanwhile the surge remains confronting appliances. No problem. We have saved the MOV!

A MOV failure occurs from overheating... so saving the MOV is saving the equipment (and preventing fire).

That is not effective protection. An effective protector leaves the MOV connected even during a direct lightning strike. Then nobody even knew a surge existed. Even the protector is not damaged. Anything less is ineffective protection. Protector failure - ie that open thermal fuse - gets the naive to recommend ineffective 'profit centers'.

If your MOV can handle infinate power over infinite time then a fuse is unneccessairy. Do you have such a MOV lying around?

Any protector that protects by "opening" is promoting a scam. Even early 20th Century Ham radio operators would disconnect their antenna - and still suffer damage. Even place the antenna lead inside a mason jar - and still suffer damage. Damage stopped when the antenna was earthed. Nothing new.

For the other 6-billion people on the planet, unplugged equipment doesn't get hit with surges.

But if like those HAM operators you are running a lead from an ungrounded lightning rod to inside your house: you might have a problem.

Only scam artists promote protectors that magically stop surges - like dams to stop floods. Both are myths.

Damns stop floods all the time... and you are advocating stopping surges (or are you telling me you are a scam artist?)

If you are going to quote me, you should first grasp what was posted. I never said (or even implied) MOV existed for over 100 years.

Be a vari-resistor? I don't think so no. And all those people you cited use surge supressors.

 

[westom]

Damns stop floods all the time... and you are advocating stopping surges (or are you telling me you are a scam artist?)

If you recite scam artist myths and refuse to learn how this stuff works, then I can only post at a level you might comprehend.

Only scam artists promote protectors that magically stop surges - like dams to stop floods. Both are myths. If you understand surge protection, then you know the 'dam' is a perfect analogy.

Protection is always about where energy dissipates. No earth ground (ie plug-in protectors) means no effective protection. (NIST calls them 'useless'.) Informed home owners spend $1 per protected appliance for a well proven and effective solution. And do not waste tens or 100 times more money on plug-in protectors. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground; no matter how many times you attempt to ignore it and repost same technical nonsense.

 

[jneutron]

And why posters such as jneutron (due to insufficient knowledge and because he was previously exposed outright lying) will then post only insults.

Stating in a erroneous post that someone is lying is not "exposing" a lie. It is a fabrication on your part, and completely unsupported.

Are you still clinging to the belief that a maxim communication IC is capable of surviving 15Kilovolt surges? A claim you publicly made at avsforum? (remember providing the link to the datasheet?) Or have you learned what the esd test is all about?

Are you still confusing the NIST and Markloff's papers on two port supressors vs one port supressors? Or have you since learned what Markloff meant when he coined the term "upside down house" ?

The record on your erroneous understandings is there for all to see over there. I caution all here to be wary of the advice you give, as much of it is incorrect as a result of you not understanding what you are speaking of. You simply cut and paste, and cite links incorrectly.

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Only scam artists promote protectors that magically stop surges

Really? GE doesn't seem to share your feelings on that.

Cheers, John.

 

[Rickster71]

Stating in a erroneous post that someone is lying is not "exposing" a lie. It is a fabrication on your part, and completely unsupported.

Are you still clinging to the belief that a maxim communication IC is capable of surviving 15Kilovolt surges? A claim you publicly made at avsforum? (remember providing the link to the datasheet?) Or have you learned what the esd test is all about?

Are you still confusing the NIST and Markloff's papers on two port supressors vs one port supressors? Or have you since learned what Markloff meant when he coined the term "upside down house" ?

The record on your erroneous understandings is there for all to see over there. I caution all here to be wary of the advice you give, as much of it is incorrect as a result of you not understanding what you are speaking of. You simply cut and paste, and cite links incorrectly.

Cheers, John

Great post John, I gave up (many threads ago) on trying to counter westom's posts.
This is the only topic he posts about, and at best has half a clue.

 

[jneutron]

Great post John, I gave up (many threads ago) on trying to counter westom's posts.
This is the only topic he posts about, and at best has half a clue.

Agreed. It is unfortunate, as many of the links are valid, but how he interprets them can be extremely misguided.

In the example of Markloff's "upside down house", Markloff details the problems with having two external ground paths to the house, and a nearby strike can cause large voltages between the grounds. A good example is having the cable come in on the opposite side of the house..a tv can be destroyed easily if a two port spd is not used at the tv. Westom does not understand the distiction between a one port device and a two port device, so misinterprets Markloff's findings.

Having the actual engineering pointed out has yet to deter his erroneous postings..

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Since I mentioned it, I provide quotes. This was stated by westom on feb 4, 2010 at 6:38PM, on a thread which is now archived at avsforum..

Quote:

""Semiconductors that were once at risk even at 35 volts must now withstand 2000 and 15,000 volts without damage. One international standard that defines it: IEC 61000-4-2. Only a minority learn technology (ie international standards) before posting. Subjective posts are examples of junk science reasoning.

Numbers mean it comes from reality. For example, a data sheet for a semiconductor interface (that was not possible in 1960). Notice repeated reference to 15,000 volts:
http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds...7E-MAX491E.pdf

How do subjective myth purveyors deal with realities such as that datasheet? Attack the messenger."" end of quote.




If one looks at that datasheet, one would find that the 15Kv is an esd specification. It uses a 100 pF capacitor charged to 15Kv, and discharged through specified chip terminals with a 1K resistor in series. They clearly define this whole body model as part of a standardized methodology that they use to test their chips.

This does not mean that the IC is capable of surviving 15Kv. It provides only the charging level to be used when performing the whole body esd test.

Cheers, John

ps..the copy and pasted link does not work, sorry about that. Here is the correct link. (and it's called a human body model, I stated "whole body" inaccurately...and it is a 1.5K resistor in series...they say the memory is the second thing to go..)

http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX1487E-MAX491E.pdf

 

[westom]

In the example of Markloff's "upside down house", Markloff details the problems with having two external ground paths to the house, and a nearby strike can cause large voltages between the grounds.

How interesting. jneutron - in nasty posts - previously said earthing was not relevant. Which proves even jnuetron can learn while still posting nasty.

Martzloff discussed a need for single point earth ground and other problems. jneutron, who read only what he wants to see, ignored Martzloff’s very first conclusion that defined plug-in (point of use) protectors as a reason for appliance damage:
> 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.

Martzloff defines why an earthed 'whole house' protector provides massive protection - without or without plug-in protectors. IEEE says same. It is not 100% protection. IEEE's standard is entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding':
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or diverted to a path which will,
> if well designed and constructed, not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
> providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
> Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct strokes from one stroke per
> 30 years ... to one stroke per 6000 years ...

Numbers that agree with what Martzloff posted. And that will result in more nasty and insulting replies from a slowly learning (conceding) and always offensive jneutron.

 

[jneutron]

How interesting. jneutron - in nasty posts - previously said earthing was not relevant. Which proves even jnuetron can learn while still posting nasty.

Martzloff discussed a need for single point earth ground and other problems. jneutron, who read only what he wants to see, ignored Martzloff’s very first conclusion that defined plug-in (point of use) protectors as a reason for appliance damage:
> 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.

Martzloff defines why an earthed 'whole house' protector provides massive protection - without or without plug-in protectors. IEEE says same. It is not 100% protection. IEEE's standard is entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding':
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or diverted to a path which will,
> if well designed and constructed, not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
> providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
> Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct strokes from one stroke per
> 30 years ... to one stroke per 6000 years ...

Numbers that agree with what Martzloff posted. And that will result in more nasty and insulting replies from a slowly learning (conceding) and always offensive jneutron.

Wow...still making things up, eh?

Read the paper. You need to learn this topic before writing. Even now, you still have no clue as to what he means with reference voltage. Learn about one and two port devices first..then you may understand..

You always call others liars when they do not agree with you...you do not change.

I await your first technical post which is not a simple cut and paste of previous cut and pastes...hey, someday you may even understand what induction means...

Cheers, John

 

[mtrycrafts]

... And why posters such as jneutron (due to insufficient knowledge ....

WOW. You really think this??? Really, really???

Do you have a list of published knowledge? I'd be interested in reading them, thanks.

 

[skers_54]

How interesting. jneutron - in nasty posts - previously said earthing was not relevant. Which proves even jnuetron can learn while still posting nasty.

Martzloff discussed a need for single point earth ground and other problems. jneutron, who read only what he wants to see, ignored Martzloff’s very first conclusion that defined plug-in (point of use) protectors as a reason for appliance damage:
> 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.

Martzloff defines why an earthed 'whole house' protector provides massive protection - without or without plug-in protectors. IEEE says same. It is not 100% protection. IEEE's standard is entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding':
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or diverted to a path which will,
> if well designed and constructed, not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
> providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
> Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct strokes from one stroke per
> 30 years ... to one stroke per 6000 years ...

Numbers that agree with what Martzloff posted. And that will result in more nasty and insulting replies from a slowly learning (conceding) and always offensive jneutron.

Maybe the reason jneutron disagrees with you is the fact that he's actually read the literature you quote while you simply skim the abstract. Even undergrads are taught that that is a no-no.

Your posts are filled with technospeak and broad-based claims with little justification besides potentially misappropriated "he said so"'s. Your diatribe is growing old.

 

[westom]

Your posts are filled with technospeak and broad-based claims with little justification besides potentially misappropriated "he said so"'s. Your diatribe is growing old.

Techno speak is called quoting those who were doing this stuff. jneutron's technical knowledge comes from posting profanity in the Limbaugh tradition.

NIST, IEEE, US Air Force, Polyphaser, Sun Microsystems, ARRL, Lightning Safety Institute, and a long list of researchers recommend what I was doing even 20 years ago. How many direct lightning strikes have you made completely irrelevant? Even products that jneutron recommends do not make protection claims in their numeric specs. Those who know by posting insults routinely ignore facts and numbers. What so confuses you is called techospeak. Ironic. Posted were the executive summaries. You still don’t get it. So in the tradition of Limbaugh and jneutron, you also post insults – and no facts. Even simple technospeak is too difficult?

At what point does the NIST make really simple enough? NIST could not make reality any simpler while contradicting his lies and myths:
> A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will
> work by diverting the surges to ground. The best surge protector in the
> world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.

 

[skers_54]

Techno speak is called quoting those who were doing this stuff. jneutron's technical knowledge comes from posting profanity in the Limbaugh tradition.

NIST, IEEE, US Air Force, Polyphaser, Sun Microsystems, ARRL, Lightning Safety Institute, and a long list of researchers recommend what I was doing even 20 years ago. How many direct lightning strikes have you made completely irrelevant? Even products that jneutron recommends do not make protection claims in their numeric specs. Those who know by posting insults routinely ignore facts and numbers. What so confuses you is called techospeak. Ironic. Posted were the executive summaries. You still don’t get it. So in the tradition of Limbaugh and jneutron, you also post insults – and no facts. Even simple technospeak is too difficult?

At what point does the NIST make really simple enough? NIST could not make reality any simpler while contradicting his lies and myths:
> A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will
> work by diverting the surges to ground. The best surge protector in the
> world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.

You obviously didn't understand my post. I'm not debating grounding or whole-house protection. Grounding is important. We get it. A plug in protector won't stop a direct lighting strike by itself. A 3rd grader understands that. Everything else you've been spewing is a redundant banter that serves no purpose.

Once again, you've skimmed the abstract. I want you to explain HOW these conclusions were reached, especially how a properly engineered auxillary protection device makes equipment more susceptible to damage. Numbers and sound theory please, not misleading antecdotes like the HAM radio operators.

Oh, here's a paper written by Martzloff that describes how a "whole-house" protector can't protect from every aspect of a lightning strike.

http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/spd-anthology/files/Dispersion.pdf

 

[JerryLove]

NIST, IEEE, US Air Force, Polyphaser, Sun Microsystems, ARRL, Lightning Safety Institute, and a long list of researchers recommend what I was doing even 20 years ago.

You mean like lightning and grounding rods you recommend:
"The most common lightning protection to structures is external in design. Lightning rods, downconductor wires, and ground rods incorporate the typical approach. In some situations, this configuration may be harmful, inadequate or even unnecessary. " - Lightning Safety Institute (http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/overv.html)

Or do you mean your assertion that non-whole-house surge supressors are useless:
"Internal lightning protection systems also are vital to a comprehensive lightning safety approach." - Lightning Safety Institute (same cite)

Or that the IEEE, which you again cite in your "any local surge supressor" rant has instructions on how to properly design and construct local surge supressors? (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/28/19171/00887228.pdf?arnumber=887228&authDecision=-203)

Whom else did you list? NIST?
Here's the NIST afferming the functionality and giving advice on picking plug-in surge protectors: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

I could go through source by source: though some don't publish their use of surge protectors online but my point is: you keep dropping names: but the names don't agree with you at all.

 

[jneutron]

Maybe the reason jneutron disagrees with you is the fact that he's actually read the literature you quote while you simply skim the abstract.

That is indeed an accurate statement.

jneutron's technical knowledge comes from posting profanity in the Limbaugh tradition.

How does technical knowledge come from posting profanity??

Another of your attempts at diversion.

1. You have accused me of lying, but cannot point to even one post of mine which would support that assertion.
2. You have accused me of profanity, and cannot point to one post where I used profanity.
3. YOU have used profanity against me on another forum.
4. When I derived the induced voltages on loops nearfield to direct strikes using faraday's law of induction, you accused me of taking it from other websites...but when another asked you to provide even one link to what you claim to be my sources of information, you stated "they are so numerous, I don't know where to start...so won't.

How you attack others who do not agree with you is clearly defined.

Drop names...claim the other is lying and has been caught lying..claim the other is just now starting to learn. Oh, and don't forget profanity. You have used that as well..

Never,ever, have you discussed any technical aspects.

Once again, you've skimmed the abstract. I want you to explain HOW these conclusions were reached, especially how a properly engineered auxillary protection device makes equipment more susceptible to damage. Numbers and sound theory please, not misleading antecdotes like the HAM radio operators.

You will receive no answer to this question. You will, however, be accused of lying soon enough..

Cheers, John

 

[Stereodude]

He did the same sort of thing to me over at AVS while discussing the output waveform of UPS's (starting here).

You just have to accept you're never going to get any sort of written concession from him regardless of what you show him and move on.

 

[westom]

Oh, here's a paper written by Martzloff that describes how a "whole-house" protector can't protect from every aspect of a lightning strike.

Martzloff's paper (section 2) demonstrates what happens when the single point earth ground is not properly implemented. Figure 1 - wires enter or leave buildings without the always required service entrance earthing. We once saw same. Computers networked to two buildings. The ethernet cable was not earthed where it entered each building. Therefore a strike to building one was a direct strike to computers in building two. Building one acted as a lightning rod connected to computers in building two - because wiring was also defective as in Martzloff's Figure 1.

In Martzloff's example, surge energy was permitted inside the house - via the sewer pipe vent. Because that energy was permitted inside the building, then it found paths to earth via appliances - ie the kettle. Martzloff says a high current 'whole house' protector is insufficient. Of course. A protector is only as effective as THE most critical component in any protection system - earth ground.

Martzloff demonstrates that we cannot test our protection systems. Therefore if damage results, an owner must locate and correct a failed or defective earthing path. In his case, lightning found earth ground destructively via aluminum foil insulation resulting in fire. So he corrected that mistake. Martzloff discusses damage between buildings because single point earthing was not installed. Even a ‘whole house’ protector is insufficient without proper earthing. Of course. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Why is this wrong only because jneutron insults with acidic words?

From IEEE Standard 141 (Red Book) says:
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process of interception of lightning produced
> surges, diverting them to ground, and by altering their associated wave shapes.
I am confused why you are asking for information that is this standard from numerous professional sources. jneutron only read enough to post caustic remarks based in Limbaugh spin. He is the kind of ‘engineer’ who gets people killed. His ‘knowledge’ can only have credibility when one is mystified by his spin. His wacko attacks are no relevant.

What do you want to know? If the well proven concept of earthing surges is difficult, then what specifically confuses you? Routine is to have direct lightning strikes without damage. This is done routinely in facilities that never waste money on plug-in protectors. That routinely and carefully earth ‘whole house’ protectors. Because a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Why (or what) is that confusing?

Is this what you want? From AT&T’s "Grounding and Bonding for Network Facilities”
> 5.3.5.3 Inductive Reactance
> The impact of inductive reactance at high frequencies can be demonstrated by comparing the DC
> resistance and inductive reactance for a #6 AWG wire. The DC resistance for 10 feet of #6AWG wire is
> 0.00427 ohms (column 3 times 10) while the inductive reactance for the same wire at 1Mhz is 24 ohm
> (column 6a) - over 5000 times as large. This is why there is so much emphasis on reducing
> inductance in our grounding infrastructure by using the shortest possible wire routes and
> minimizing all bends.

George Kauffman discusses in "Get grounded: Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" in Electrical Engineering Times:
> Providing a flow path for the lightning current is central to effective lightning protection. ...
> Another aspect of impedance ... of a wire is predominately related to its length and weakly
> related to its diameter. ... The length of the cable increases the impedance dramatically.

 

[jneutron]

In Martzloff's example, surge energy was permitted inside the house - via the sewer pipe vent. Because that energy was permitted inside the building, then it found paths to earth via appliances - ie the kettle. Martzloff says a high current 'whole house' protector is insufficient. Of course. A protector is only as effective as THE most critical component in any protection system - earth ground.

Actually, what he stated was:

""Perhaps one explanation might be that during the initial part of the rainfall, the still-dry trees could not emit a successful competing upward streamer, compared to the well-grounded cast iron pipe. Comments from lightning physics experts on this speculation would be welcome.""

Note the leading word "perhaps" and "might be", and the trailing word "speculation". Also note he stated that the entity hit was "well grounded". All words in red..

In actuality, the leading edge dI/dt caused by the strike on the vent pipe created a voltage gradient sufficient to clear the enamel of the sink. That voltage gradient due to inductance cannot be altered, it is a physical entity due to the vertical length of the grounded pipe and the storage of inductive energy around it during current slew. And the best part of this occurance is....ta da::

The kettle was connected to the earth via the wiring to the service panel..It's connected wires form a loop which will trap the time rate of change magnetic field caused by the bolt current in the vent pipe. As I previously calculated over at avs, the flux gradient one meter from the pipe will be 4 kilovolts per square meter induction. As anybody can clearly see (well, almost everybody), that loop will have high voltage induced on it. Hence the flash through the enamel.

His stated recommended changes will not alter the flashover at the sink to kettle. Nothing done at the service feed entrance will change what happened either. The only significant thing he fixed was the aluminum foil in the attic thing. Preventing flash there is a significant safety fix.

I am confused why you are asking for information that is this standard from numerous professional sources.

So, then you will not answer the question??

jneutron only read enough to post caustic remarks based in Limbaugh spin.

Waittaminute...caustic remarks?? Where?? What happened to profanity??? Weren't you accusing me of profanity??? Make up your mind.

His wacko attacks are no relevant.

Whoops, can't refute anything technical he has posted, so now I'll call him "whacko"...

Your game is clear dude.

Cheers, John

ps...your posts are pleasant comic relief..thanks and keep them coming..

 

[westom]

Or do you mean your assertion that non-whole-house surge supressors are useless:

So you again misquote and misrepresent. You really do aspire to be another jneutron.

I did not call plug-in protectors useless. Please read before replying. Those profit centers were described as ineffective. NIST is blunter. The NIST said your beloved protectors are "useless". How many times must I explain the difference between what I said and what the NIST says before you finally get it?

Jerry Love cites the NIST brochure. Jerry, at what point do you read the NIST warning about those "useless" protectors that you so love? This quoted directly from your own NIST citation - that you did not understand:
> 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.

Jerry - first read to have knowledge. Even you own citation contradicts the myths you are reciting.

Did you read your IEEE citation? A discussion about safely designing MOV based protectors. MOV protectors do same as semiconductor, carbon block, and GDT type protectors. But how MOVs are designed for human safety, et al is different. Why do you twist it into proof that plug-in protectors work? That IEEE citation makes no such discussion. Amazing you do not know that a 'whole house' protector is an MOV protector. You would if you had read your own citation.

So you routinely do not read what you post. You simply post citation URLs so that others will think you are informed. Your own citation defined a plug-in protector as "useless". Did you read it? Page 17. I did not call them useless. Your own citation - that you could not read - called them "useless". When will you understand your citations before posting?

Even your lightningsafety quote only agrees with what I have been posting. Do you only attack because jneutron has again been exposed posting myths and technical lies? Lightning Safety is quite blunt about what makes protection effective:
> Without proper bonding, all other elements of the LPs are useless. ...
> When lightning strikes, all grounded equipment will rise and fall equipotentially.
> This eliminates the unequal voltages in separate sensitive signal and data systems.
> Bonding should connect all conductors to the same "Mother Earth."

Protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Even your own citations says that – agree with me. So why are you again posting nasty myths?

 

[jneutron]

So you again misquote and misrepresent. You really do aspire to be another jneutron.

This is so much fun...thank you for the comic relief...

I did not call plug-in protectors useless. Please read before replying. Those profit centers were described as ineffective.

So lets see...if you call them "profit centers" instead of "plug in protectors", and say they are "ineffective" instead of "useless", we'll never realize that you are saying the same thing..wow...I certainly was bamboozled...

In point of fact, you have many times called them useless. And yet, NIST doesn't. They have recommendations on how to use them...

You on the other hand, do not understand the difference between one and two port appliances, and why it is important..

NIST is blunter. The NIST said your beloved protectors are "useless".

No, they do not...

Now, heeeeere comes the diversionary attacks...stage two in the westom school of argument..

So you routinely do not read what you post. You simply post citation URLs so that others will think you are informed. Your own citation defined a plug-in protector as "useless". Did you read it? Page 17. I did not call them useless. Your own citation - that you could not read - called them "useless". When will you understand your citations before posting?

Even your lightningsafety quote only agrees with what I have been posting. Do you only attack because jneutron has again been exposed posting myths and technical lies?

Exposed??? You can't even discuss the technical issues..so how have you ""exposed" anything???

What has been "exposed", is your lack of technical dialogue and your consistent use of attacks against others.

Using the word "exposed" is meaningless when there is no substance behind it.

You provide no substance..laughs, yes..substance, sorry...none.

Your best attribute? Pinging threads such as this so that others can continually see where you fail to put together a coherent technical dialogue..

Cheers, John