- Thread starter
- #41
F
fl_fly_boy@yahoo.com
On Sep 14, 3:04 am, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 11:32 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 11:19 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch isprotection? The
> >> numbers. 1) What is voltage for that Polyswitch? 60 volts.
>
> > Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v.
>
> Let's view that Polyswitch datasheet for the RXEF010 at:
> http://tinyurl.com/389gyp
>
> > Vmax Operating (V) = 60
>
> Curious. A Polyswitch that would have to block at least 600 volts
> (ypically more like 1000 volts) is only rated for 60 volts? Fourteen
> reasons demonstrated that fl_fly_boy does not have basic electrical
> knowledge. Which one is *ignorant* ? One that quotes a
> manufacturer datasheet? Or the electrically naive accuser who could
> not bother to post numbers or a datasheet who recommends ineffective
> protectors who instead posts insults? Well, one who posts insults
> also believes protectors work 'tip to ring'. He just knows this
> cannot even say why. Those who post myths often avoid 'reasons why'.
> Myths don't last very long if numbers are provided.
>
> A poster who identified fourteen errors in fl_fly_boy's reasoning,
> AND who provided the datasheet, AND who identifies effective
> protectors as 'wire to earth', AND has a few decades of actual
> experience, AND knew about the telco provided 'whole house' protector
> (fl_fly_boy did not), AND understands that destructive surges are made
> irrelevant when shunted / diverted / clamped to earth ground - that
> one is accused by fl_fly_boy as being "ignorant"? He accuses and
> does not even provide a number to prove 'ignorance'. But again,
> personal accusations and no numbers is how junk science gets promoted.
>
> Telephone appliances already contain internalprotection. Telephone
> appliances must withstand more than 600 volt transients without
> damage as even demonstrated in Bell System Technical papers. Anyprotectionthat would be effective adjacent to a DSL modem is already
> inside that DSL modem. So thatprotectioninside that DSL modem is
> not overwhelmed, we earth a typically destructivesurge(lightning)
> before thatsurgecan enter a building. IOW we do exactly what the
> telco also does for their own switching computers. Connected to
> overhead wires all over town, that switching computer may be
> threatened by 100 surges during every thunderstorm - and must not be
> damaged.
>
> fl_fly_boy also asks:
>
> > Do you think lighting creates all surges?
>
> We installsurgeprotectionfor lightning. Then other surges are
> also made irrelevant. Effectivesurgeprotectionis installed so that
> direct lightning strikes should not cause damage to electronics or the
> protector. How do we do that? Clearly a one centimeter Polyswitch
> will block lightning surges.
>
> Those who learned about Ben Franklin's lightning rods in primary
> school would know about earthing lightning - to protect church
> steeples and even humans. Ben Franklin demonstrated the technique in
> 1752. Earliest 20th Century Ham radio operators learned that a mason
> jar does not stop lightning but earthing their antenna stopped
> damage. Westinghouse and GE research papers demonstrated earthing to
> protect electronics in the 1930s. Why were they so much smarter long
> ago?
>
> 21st Century 'geniuses' who recommend 'miracle box' protectors need
> not learn from science and history. Instead, Circuit City and Best
> Buy salesman can provide education. Those 'miracle boxes' will
> somehow stop what three miles of sky could not? It must be true. The
> salesman said so.
>
> If fl_fly_boy knew even one of those fourteen reasons, then he would
> not have again replied with myths - that a Polyswitch will somehow
> stop lightning surges. Let's see. Thesurgeis done in
> microseconds. The Polyswitch takes about 1000 times longer to
> respond. Oh. Another fact that fl_fly_boy did not learn from
> datasheets. Polyswitch could never respond fast enough - but somehow
> it providedprotection.
>
> The OP was provided two recommendations to protect his DSL modem.
> First, confirm and maybe enhance earthing for a telco installed 'whole
> house' protector. Second, earth all AC electric wires 'less than 10
> feet' to that same earth ground - either directly (neutral wire) or
> via a 'whole house' protector (hot wires). Protectionof his DSL
> modem and everything else inside the building should be defined by the
> quality of and connections to his earthing system (secondaryprotection) -
> http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
> AND the primaryprotectionsystem:
> http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
> Both systems should be inspected.
>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - be it asurge
> protector or a Franklin lightning rod.
Since you think a pots line needs no secondary protection from
voltage, and current is never an issue, and since you picked a 60v
ptc, and since you have difficulty understanding simple technology, I
will be nice enough and point you to your tyco site.
http://www.circuitprotection.com/04Databook/B05_CPE_(091-092).pdf
http://www.circuitprotection.com/litbrochures/2ProDevicesAP1.pdf ptc's
and mov's
instead of that 60v w_tom, try this one since you like tyco.
http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/bin/TE.Connect?C=1&M=BYPN&PID=377788&PN=TRF600-150&I=13
better choices, but you like tyco.
this is not the only ## reasons you are wrong.
Since you think a pots line needs no secondary protection from
voltage, and current is never an issue, and since you picked a 60v
ptc, and since you have difficulty understanding simple technology, I
will be nice enough and point you to your tyco site.
http://www.circuitprotection.com/04Databook/B05_CPE_(091-092).pdf
ieee quote
"Telephone line "primary protectors" have been required for almost
100 years, and are normally spark gap protectors, based on either
carbon or gas discharge tubes. "Carbon block" protectors consist of
carbon electrodes and an air gap. They are generally considered
obsolete, but are still found in the field. In the last 50 years,
they
have been mostly replaced by "gas tube" protectors, which consist of
a
spark gap in a small container of inert gas, like a neon lamp. The
breakdown voltages are quite high, typically 600-1000 V for carbon
and
400-600 V for gas tubes. They normally have a thermally-activated
short circuit switch so that if a sustained high AC voltage occurs,
heat generated in the arc will close the switch and carry the current
harmlessly to ground. These protectors are listed under UL Standard
497. They typically have high surge current ratings, 5,000 to 10,000
A
(8x20 µs), since they may have to intercept direct lightning strikes
carried in on aerial phone lines."
w_tom quote -- a
"No, I am not done. In the 1970s, a Bell System study provided
numbers for surges. Medium surge voltage was 381 volts."
w_tom quote -- b
"Curious. A Polyswitch that would have to block at least 600 volts
(ypically more like 1000 volts) is only rated for 60 volts?" (w_tom
picked the 60V)
w_tom quote -- c
"> Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground" letting in
> 400-1000v, close to 100%.
Those research papers correct his odds: closer to 0% get "letting
in". Earthing limited all surges to below what the telephone
equipment must withstand without damage."
which of these w_tom quotes are correct?
See w_tom lie 14 more times. He twist and lies so much he knows no
truth or reality.
maybe I should be nice like curt and just say "Please w_tom, *do not*
read into, and then make claims that I've asserted something I
haven't."
> On Sep 13, 11:32 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 11:19 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch isprotection? The
> >> numbers. 1) What is voltage for that Polyswitch? 60 volts.
>
> > Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v.
>
> Let's view that Polyswitch datasheet for the RXEF010 at:
> http://tinyurl.com/389gyp
>
> > Vmax Operating (V) = 60
>
> Curious. A Polyswitch that would have to block at least 600 volts
> (ypically more like 1000 volts) is only rated for 60 volts? Fourteen
> reasons demonstrated that fl_fly_boy does not have basic electrical
> knowledge. Which one is *ignorant* ? One that quotes a
> manufacturer datasheet? Or the electrically naive accuser who could
> not bother to post numbers or a datasheet who recommends ineffective
> protectors who instead posts insults? Well, one who posts insults
> also believes protectors work 'tip to ring'. He just knows this
> cannot even say why. Those who post myths often avoid 'reasons why'.
> Myths don't last very long if numbers are provided.
>
> A poster who identified fourteen errors in fl_fly_boy's reasoning,
> AND who provided the datasheet, AND who identifies effective
> protectors as 'wire to earth', AND has a few decades of actual
> experience, AND knew about the telco provided 'whole house' protector
> (fl_fly_boy did not), AND understands that destructive surges are made
> irrelevant when shunted / diverted / clamped to earth ground - that
> one is accused by fl_fly_boy as being "ignorant"? He accuses and
> does not even provide a number to prove 'ignorance'. But again,
> personal accusations and no numbers is how junk science gets promoted.
>
> Telephone appliances already contain internalprotection. Telephone
> appliances must withstand more than 600 volt transients without
> damage as even demonstrated in Bell System Technical papers. Anyprotectionthat would be effective adjacent to a DSL modem is already
> inside that DSL modem. So thatprotectioninside that DSL modem is
> not overwhelmed, we earth a typically destructivesurge(lightning)
> before thatsurgecan enter a building. IOW we do exactly what the
> telco also does for their own switching computers. Connected to
> overhead wires all over town, that switching computer may be
> threatened by 100 surges during every thunderstorm - and must not be
> damaged.
>
> fl_fly_boy also asks:
>
> > Do you think lighting creates all surges?
>
> We installsurgeprotectionfor lightning. Then other surges are
> also made irrelevant. Effectivesurgeprotectionis installed so that
> direct lightning strikes should not cause damage to electronics or the
> protector. How do we do that? Clearly a one centimeter Polyswitch
> will block lightning surges.
>
> Those who learned about Ben Franklin's lightning rods in primary
> school would know about earthing lightning - to protect church
> steeples and even humans. Ben Franklin demonstrated the technique in
> 1752. Earliest 20th Century Ham radio operators learned that a mason
> jar does not stop lightning but earthing their antenna stopped
> damage. Westinghouse and GE research papers demonstrated earthing to
> protect electronics in the 1930s. Why were they so much smarter long
> ago?
>
> 21st Century 'geniuses' who recommend 'miracle box' protectors need
> not learn from science and history. Instead, Circuit City and Best
> Buy salesman can provide education. Those 'miracle boxes' will
> somehow stop what three miles of sky could not? It must be true. The
> salesman said so.
>
> If fl_fly_boy knew even one of those fourteen reasons, then he would
> not have again replied with myths - that a Polyswitch will somehow
> stop lightning surges. Let's see. Thesurgeis done in
> microseconds. The Polyswitch takes about 1000 times longer to
> respond. Oh. Another fact that fl_fly_boy did not learn from
> datasheets. Polyswitch could never respond fast enough - but somehow
> it providedprotection.
>
> The OP was provided two recommendations to protect his DSL modem.
> First, confirm and maybe enhance earthing for a telco installed 'whole
> house' protector. Second, earth all AC electric wires 'less than 10
> feet' to that same earth ground - either directly (neutral wire) or
> via a 'whole house' protector (hot wires). Protectionof his DSL
> modem and everything else inside the building should be defined by the
> quality of and connections to his earthing system (secondaryprotection) -
> http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
> AND the primaryprotectionsystem:
> http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
> Both systems should be inspected.
>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - be it asurge
> protector or a Franklin lightning rod.
Since you think a pots line needs no secondary protection from
voltage, and current is never an issue, and since you picked a 60v
ptc, and since you have difficulty understanding simple technology, I
will be nice enough and point you to your tyco site.
http://www.circuitprotection.com/04Databook/B05_CPE_(091-092).pdf
http://www.circuitprotection.com/litbrochures/2ProDevicesAP1.pdf ptc's
and mov's
instead of that 60v w_tom, try this one since you like tyco.
http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/bin/TE.Connect?C=1&M=BYPN&PID=377788&PN=TRF600-150&I=13
better choices, but you like tyco.
this is not the only ## reasons you are wrong.
Since you think a pots line needs no secondary protection from
voltage, and current is never an issue, and since you picked a 60v
ptc, and since you have difficulty understanding simple technology, I
will be nice enough and point you to your tyco site.
http://www.circuitprotection.com/04Databook/B05_CPE_(091-092).pdf
ieee quote
"Telephone line "primary protectors" have been required for almost
100 years, and are normally spark gap protectors, based on either
carbon or gas discharge tubes. "Carbon block" protectors consist of
carbon electrodes and an air gap. They are generally considered
obsolete, but are still found in the field. In the last 50 years,
they
have been mostly replaced by "gas tube" protectors, which consist of
a
spark gap in a small container of inert gas, like a neon lamp. The
breakdown voltages are quite high, typically 600-1000 V for carbon
and
400-600 V for gas tubes. They normally have a thermally-activated
short circuit switch so that if a sustained high AC voltage occurs,
heat generated in the arc will close the switch and carry the current
harmlessly to ground. These protectors are listed under UL Standard
497. They typically have high surge current ratings, 5,000 to 10,000
A
(8x20 µs), since they may have to intercept direct lightning strikes
carried in on aerial phone lines."
w_tom quote -- a
"No, I am not done. In the 1970s, a Bell System study provided
numbers for surges. Medium surge voltage was 381 volts."
w_tom quote -- b
"Curious. A Polyswitch that would have to block at least 600 volts
(ypically more like 1000 volts) is only rated for 60 volts?" (w_tom
picked the 60V)
w_tom quote -- c
"> Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground" letting in
> 400-1000v, close to 100%.
Those research papers correct his odds: closer to 0% get "letting
in". Earthing limited all surges to below what the telephone
equipment must withstand without damage."
which of these w_tom quotes are correct?
See w_tom lie 14 more times. He twist and lies so much he knows no
truth or reality.
maybe I should be nice like curt and just say "Please w_tom, *do not*
read into, and then make claims that I've asserted something I
haven't."
