- Thread starter
- #21
W
w_tom
A destructive surge seeks earth ground. If your semiconductor
protector shorts tip to ring, then no current flows through that
protector. Numbers will be provided to demonstrate that reality.
Worse, that fact would have been completely obvious with grasp of some
basic electrical concepts. Real world protectors don't connect tip to
ring. But protectors promoted by junk science to the naive make that
tip/ring connection. The word scam applies...
Voltage (before a surge) between earth and ring is maybe 50 volts.
Voltage between tip and ring is maybe 50 volts. Let's say a surge
arrives. Voltage between tip and ring remains at 50 volts. But
voltage between earth and ring is now 2050 volts. Voltage tip to
earth is now 2000 volts.
What has your tip to ring protector done? Nothing. Your protector
saw no spike voltage while a 2000 volt surge continued destructively
into a DSL modem. Your protector conducted no current provided no
protection. A typically destructive 2000 volts spike was completely
ignored by your tip to ring protector. That tip to ring protector is
classic of protectors promoted by urban myths in retail stores.
Do surges get conducted back to the CO: "sending any spike back to
the phone company, where they have either better surge grounding,
higher quality components"? Do you just make this stuff up? That is
absurd but typical of science promoted by retail store salesman.
Please learn basic electrical concepts. Please learn about wire
impedance. Please learn why previous posts defined a 'less than 10
foot' earthing wire. If an earthing wire must be so short, then how
will "sending any spike back to the phone company, where they have
either better surge grounding" accomplish anything? The spike will
not travel 10,000 feet back to the CO. Did you grasp why an earthing
wire must be 'less than 10 feet', why no sharp bends, why not inside
metallic conduit, etc? These reasons should be obvious with
electrical knowledge. How can you know what a protector does when you
don't even comprehend basic electrical concepts.
Please learn how telephone surge protectors are constructed.
Effective telco protector makes a connection to earth not tip to
ring. Effective protectors were even standard even in the 1950s:
http://www.inwap.com/inwap/chez/Phoneline.jpg
Even that 1950s protector is not wired as mm described - tip to ring.
60 years later and mm still does not know why that telco 'installed
for free' protector is so effective - and not wired tip to ring.
Please learn why earthing is so critical before claiming a surge will
be conducted back to the CO - one of the most absurd ideas posted.
Your tip to ring protector completely ignored a 1200 volts surge.
Effective protectors, instead, connect each wire to earth ground as
even shown in that 1950 protector picture.
Why do we install surge protectors? So that direct lightning
strikes do not cause damage. Protectors installed to earth direct
lightning strikes make trivial induced surges irrelevant. . But when
promoting ineffective plug-in protectors, better is to deny direct
lightning protection exists. A protector that is destroyed by a
surge is not just undersized and grossly overpriced (extremely
profitable). Undersized protectors will also have the naive
recommending those scam protectors. Then when damage occurs, the
naive will proclaim nothing can protect from direct strikes.
Using your logic, then your telco (that suffers maybe 100 surges
during each thunderstorm) must also halt telephone service for four
days annually to replace their surge damaged switching computer. Why
does your telco never shutdown for thunderstorms? Because surge
protection is installed for direct lightning strikes not for induced
surges from nearby strikes. Look at how obvious that induce surge
protection is. If protectors were only for induced surges, then your
entire town suffers many days every year without phone service.
Please stop letting those scam artists push so many urban myths.
What completely earths an induced surge on a 100+ foot long
antenna? One NE-2 glow light. An induced surge is so *massive* that
an NE-2 glow lamp conducting milliamps earths an induced surge from
nearby lightning. Once we apply numbers (milliamps), then that
massive induced surge becomes something trivial or completely
irrelevant. Demonstrated is why junk science promotes protectors
without numbers. We install protectors to earth direct lightning
strikes. Protector must remain functional after that strike. Nothing
new here. It was standard technology even in the 1930s.
Effective protectors earth a direct strike AND remain functional.
The effective protector earths surges so that a human never even knows
the surge exists.
What happens when an effective protector earths surges? The naive
does not see damage therefore does not recommend the protector. So
many know only from what they see rather than learn how electricity
works. The naive therefore would never know which protector is
effective. The naive recommend grossly undersized and overpriced
protectors only because the ineffective protector fails - smokes.
They rationalize that it must work because it was destroyed. Classic
junk science reasoning.
"Surge suppressors are meant to" connect surges to earth ground so
that direct lightning strikes cause no damage. Earthing is how Ben
Franklin eliminated lightning damage to church steeples in 1752.
Earthing is why commercial broadcasting stations suffer direct
lightning strikes routinely without damage. There is no way to be
nice about contemptuous junk science myths that ignore earthing.
Instead we learn from those who learned the science and then did the
work for generations:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
> Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
> 30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
> lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
> careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
> WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
> every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
> strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from
> a strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines
> knocking *them* out, ...
> Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
> educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct strikes.
> The belief that there's no protection from direct strike damage is
> *myth*. ...
> The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
> and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
> single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
> you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
> That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
> low ohm DC path.
What is that telephone line? A long wire antenna connected to a DSL
modem. Same techniques that eliminate damage in commercial
broadcasting stations also mean no damage to a DSL modem. What do the
educated do? Do they learn of "surges and spikes in the ranges that
can be stopped by suppressors of various cost and quality [that] is
far beyond my ability to learn, or to remember". Funny. Why do you
confuse scam products with simple 'whole house' protectors that have
that dedicated earthing wire? There is no wide range of products.
There is a $10 protector sold in the grocery store. An equivalent
protector with fancy paint sells for $150 in Circuit City. Many
fashions clothing the same protector. If you are confused, then you
have spent too much time listening to urban myths promoted by retail
store salesman or are entranced by the latest fashion in surge
protectors. Basic 'whole house' protectors - more than sufficient -
are from GE, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, Leviton, Square D, Intermatic and
other well known responsible manufacturers. The effective protector
has an earthing wire for that 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection
- and no fashion sense.
You don't need a protector on your DSL line. Instead, confirm the
telco installed protector is properly earthed. You provided the
earthing. If your earthing is not sufficient, then a superior 'telco
supplied' protector will not be effective. But again, why do you keep
ignoring this fundamental fact. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Why do we repeatedly reference facts such as 'less than 10
feet'? Because earthing defines protection. Why did you even fall
for the junk science promoting a 'tip to ring' protector? Again,
because you keep ignoring what provides protection: earth ground.
Earth ground. Earth ground. Stop ignoring the expression. Earth
ground, Earth ground. There is no 'magic box' solution. The magic
box is not protection. Earth ground. Earth ground. Earth ground is
the protection. Please learn the simple concept. Stop assuming
'magic boxes' provide protection. Stop describing protectors that
stop surges.
What wire typically carries 'DSL modem' destructive surges into the
building? AC electric. Which wires typically do not have that
necessary earthing? AC electric. Which utility needs you to earth a
'whole house' protector (protection just like your telco does in their
COs)? AC electric.
Provided again is where your solutions lie. Proper earthing of the
telco installed protector. Proper earthing of an AC electric 'whole
house' protector. No magic box solutions exist for the DSL modem
wire. Any protector without that earthing wire violates what an
effective protector must accomplish.
So what is that? Maybe 26 different reasons how an effective
protector works, why it works, why earthing defined protection, why
surges are not "stopped by suppressors of various cost and
quality" , and why a DSL protector is wasted money. How many reasons
do you need? Which one of us was doing this stuff generations ago?
Last paragraph again defines what is required to protect a DSL modem.
On Sep 11, 11:40 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Do you really believe a protector will stop or absorb what three
>> miles of sky could not stop?
>
> Well of course none of the surge suppressors can stop the actual
> lightning bolt, which can take a convoluted path, even on occasion
> going through people who are in a house.
>
> Surge suppressors are meant to suppress voltage spikes that are
> induced in conductors that are near the lightning. These spikes
> occur in a wide range of voltages, and suppressors can stop or bypass
> many of them.
>
> One way to protect equipment connected to a phone line would be with
> one of the semiconductors (I forget the name) that have high
> resistance with normal voltages (whatever is normal for device as
> normally used), and much lower resistance when voltage gets much
> higher. This could be used to short the tip and ring of a phone line,
> sending any spike back to the phone company, where they have either
> better surge grounding, higher quality components, or where they will
> replace any parts that get ruined.
>
> The details of how many lightning strikes create surges and spikes in
> the ranges that can be stopped by suppressors of various cost and
> quality is far beyond my ability to learn, or to remember, if I had
> learned them. And whether I should use a surpressor on this DSL line,
> I don't know for certain.
>
> But I don't believe that spikes are a myth, or that they can't be
> surprressed.
protector shorts tip to ring, then no current flows through that
protector. Numbers will be provided to demonstrate that reality.
Worse, that fact would have been completely obvious with grasp of some
basic electrical concepts. Real world protectors don't connect tip to
ring. But protectors promoted by junk science to the naive make that
tip/ring connection. The word scam applies...
Voltage (before a surge) between earth and ring is maybe 50 volts.
Voltage between tip and ring is maybe 50 volts. Let's say a surge
arrives. Voltage between tip and ring remains at 50 volts. But
voltage between earth and ring is now 2050 volts. Voltage tip to
earth is now 2000 volts.
What has your tip to ring protector done? Nothing. Your protector
saw no spike voltage while a 2000 volt surge continued destructively
into a DSL modem. Your protector conducted no current provided no
protection. A typically destructive 2000 volts spike was completely
ignored by your tip to ring protector. That tip to ring protector is
classic of protectors promoted by urban myths in retail stores.
Do surges get conducted back to the CO: "sending any spike back to
the phone company, where they have either better surge grounding,
higher quality components"? Do you just make this stuff up? That is
absurd but typical of science promoted by retail store salesman.
Please learn basic electrical concepts. Please learn about wire
impedance. Please learn why previous posts defined a 'less than 10
foot' earthing wire. If an earthing wire must be so short, then how
will "sending any spike back to the phone company, where they have
either better surge grounding" accomplish anything? The spike will
not travel 10,000 feet back to the CO. Did you grasp why an earthing
wire must be 'less than 10 feet', why no sharp bends, why not inside
metallic conduit, etc? These reasons should be obvious with
electrical knowledge. How can you know what a protector does when you
don't even comprehend basic electrical concepts.
Please learn how telephone surge protectors are constructed.
Effective telco protector makes a connection to earth not tip to
ring. Effective protectors were even standard even in the 1950s:
http://www.inwap.com/inwap/chez/Phoneline.jpg
Even that 1950s protector is not wired as mm described - tip to ring.
60 years later and mm still does not know why that telco 'installed
for free' protector is so effective - and not wired tip to ring.
Please learn why earthing is so critical before claiming a surge will
be conducted back to the CO - one of the most absurd ideas posted.
Your tip to ring protector completely ignored a 1200 volts surge.
Effective protectors, instead, connect each wire to earth ground as
even shown in that 1950 protector picture.
Why do we install surge protectors? So that direct lightning
strikes do not cause damage. Protectors installed to earth direct
lightning strikes make trivial induced surges irrelevant. . But when
promoting ineffective plug-in protectors, better is to deny direct
lightning protection exists. A protector that is destroyed by a
surge is not just undersized and grossly overpriced (extremely
profitable). Undersized protectors will also have the naive
recommending those scam protectors. Then when damage occurs, the
naive will proclaim nothing can protect from direct strikes.
Using your logic, then your telco (that suffers maybe 100 surges
during each thunderstorm) must also halt telephone service for four
days annually to replace their surge damaged switching computer. Why
does your telco never shutdown for thunderstorms? Because surge
protection is installed for direct lightning strikes not for induced
surges from nearby strikes. Look at how obvious that induce surge
protection is. If protectors were only for induced surges, then your
entire town suffers many days every year without phone service.
Please stop letting those scam artists push so many urban myths.
What completely earths an induced surge on a 100+ foot long
antenna? One NE-2 glow light. An induced surge is so *massive* that
an NE-2 glow lamp conducting milliamps earths an induced surge from
nearby lightning. Once we apply numbers (milliamps), then that
massive induced surge becomes something trivial or completely
irrelevant. Demonstrated is why junk science promotes protectors
without numbers. We install protectors to earth direct lightning
strikes. Protector must remain functional after that strike. Nothing
new here. It was standard technology even in the 1930s.
Effective protectors earth a direct strike AND remain functional.
The effective protector earths surges so that a human never even knows
the surge exists.
What happens when an effective protector earths surges? The naive
does not see damage therefore does not recommend the protector. So
many know only from what they see rather than learn how electricity
works. The naive therefore would never know which protector is
effective. The naive recommend grossly undersized and overpriced
protectors only because the ineffective protector fails - smokes.
They rationalize that it must work because it was destroyed. Classic
junk science reasoning.
"Surge suppressors are meant to" connect surges to earth ground so
that direct lightning strikes cause no damage. Earthing is how Ben
Franklin eliminated lightning damage to church steeples in 1752.
Earthing is why commercial broadcasting stations suffer direct
lightning strikes routinely without damage. There is no way to be
nice about contemptuous junk science myths that ignore earthing.
Instead we learn from those who learned the science and then did the
work for generations:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
> Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
> 30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
> lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
> careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
> WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
> every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
> strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from
> a strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines
> knocking *them* out, ...
> Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
> educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct strikes.
> The belief that there's no protection from direct strike damage is
> *myth*. ...
> The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
> and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
> single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
> you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
> That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
> low ohm DC path.
What is that telephone line? A long wire antenna connected to a DSL
modem. Same techniques that eliminate damage in commercial
broadcasting stations also mean no damage to a DSL modem. What do the
educated do? Do they learn of "surges and spikes in the ranges that
can be stopped by suppressors of various cost and quality [that] is
far beyond my ability to learn, or to remember". Funny. Why do you
confuse scam products with simple 'whole house' protectors that have
that dedicated earthing wire? There is no wide range of products.
There is a $10 protector sold in the grocery store. An equivalent
protector with fancy paint sells for $150 in Circuit City. Many
fashions clothing the same protector. If you are confused, then you
have spent too much time listening to urban myths promoted by retail
store salesman or are entranced by the latest fashion in surge
protectors. Basic 'whole house' protectors - more than sufficient -
are from GE, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, Leviton, Square D, Intermatic and
other well known responsible manufacturers. The effective protector
has an earthing wire for that 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection
- and no fashion sense.
You don't need a protector on your DSL line. Instead, confirm the
telco installed protector is properly earthed. You provided the
earthing. If your earthing is not sufficient, then a superior 'telco
supplied' protector will not be effective. But again, why do you keep
ignoring this fundamental fact. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Why do we repeatedly reference facts such as 'less than 10
feet'? Because earthing defines protection. Why did you even fall
for the junk science promoting a 'tip to ring' protector? Again,
because you keep ignoring what provides protection: earth ground.
Earth ground. Earth ground. Stop ignoring the expression. Earth
ground, Earth ground. There is no 'magic box' solution. The magic
box is not protection. Earth ground. Earth ground. Earth ground is
the protection. Please learn the simple concept. Stop assuming
'magic boxes' provide protection. Stop describing protectors that
stop surges.
What wire typically carries 'DSL modem' destructive surges into the
building? AC electric. Which wires typically do not have that
necessary earthing? AC electric. Which utility needs you to earth a
'whole house' protector (protection just like your telco does in their
COs)? AC electric.
Provided again is where your solutions lie. Proper earthing of the
telco installed protector. Proper earthing of an AC electric 'whole
house' protector. No magic box solutions exist for the DSL modem
wire. Any protector without that earthing wire violates what an
effective protector must accomplish.
So what is that? Maybe 26 different reasons how an effective
protector works, why it works, why earthing defined protection, why
surges are not "stopped by suppressors of various cost and
quality" , and why a DSL protector is wasted money. How many reasons
do you need? Which one of us was doing this stuff generations ago?
Last paragraph again defines what is required to protect a DSL modem.
On Sep 11, 11:40 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Do you really believe a protector will stop or absorb what three
>> miles of sky could not stop?
>
> Well of course none of the surge suppressors can stop the actual
> lightning bolt, which can take a convoluted path, even on occasion
> going through people who are in a house.
>
> Surge suppressors are meant to suppress voltage spikes that are
> induced in conductors that are near the lightning. These spikes
> occur in a wide range of voltages, and suppressors can stop or bypass
> many of them.
>
> One way to protect equipment connected to a phone line would be with
> one of the semiconductors (I forget the name) that have high
> resistance with normal voltages (whatever is normal for device as
> normally used), and much lower resistance when voltage gets much
> higher. This could be used to short the tip and ring of a phone line,
> sending any spike back to the phone company, where they have either
> better surge grounding, higher quality components, or where they will
> replace any parts that get ruined.
>
> The details of how many lightning strikes create surges and spikes in
> the ranges that can be stopped by suppressors of various cost and
> quality is far beyond my ability to learn, or to remember, if I had
> learned them. And whether I should use a surpressor on this DSL line,
> I don't know for certain.
>
> But I don't believe that spikes are a myth, or that they can't be
> surprressed.
