sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* See Hot Sexy Star Aishwarya Rai Videos In All Angles. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/19f39e70e3794266?hl=en
* Schematics & standards - 13 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c62344a753d9d652?hl=en
* Surge Protectors - 8 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/9a42e9c9a84828d9?hl=en
* Simple hack to get $1500 to your home. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/cea0b65870534335?hl=en
* Simple hack to get $500 to your home - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/f72e1953ef81c894?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: See Hot Sexy Star Aishwarya Rai Videos In All Angles.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/19f39e70e3794266?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 19 2010 10:52 pm
From: John Robertson

Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:14:04 -0500, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
>> <-snip ->
>
>> Wanna guess there's some malicious script hiding in the image?
>
> So, that's why you felt compelled to repost the spammer's
> entire piece of excrement -- including his URL?

More efficient to simply expose all the headers and forward to the abuse
email of the source - in the first iteration groups-abuse@google.com.

I'm just doing that now with any spam I see in any of the groups I
frequent. It might annoy the people at Google-groups (and others) to do
something about this problem.

I recommend that everyone that knows how to expose all the headers (in
Eudora you simply pull down "View - Headers - All") and then forward away.

John :-#(#

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Schematics & standards
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/c62344a753d9d652?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 1:16 am
From: adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham)

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:4c1d00fe$0$2388$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> > On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus:
> >
> >> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
> >>> schematics (like for home appliances).
> >>>
> >> [...]
> >>>... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern
> >>>approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
> >>> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
> >>> jumping over another with no connection.
> >>
> >> I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and
> >> extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which
> >> could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be
> >> staggered instead.
> >>
> >> e.g.
> >> http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier.gif
> >
> > BZZZZZZT! Fail.
> >
> > While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the
> > drafts-person of that schematic for the following:
> >
> > o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors[1]
> > o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????)
> > o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires.
> >
> > That's totally unnecessary here: it would be quite obvious that all those
> > vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A well-drawn
> > dot is all that's needed there.
> >
> > (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either)
> >
> >
> > [1] With apologies to J. Liebermann.
> >
>
> I must say that I don't really like the staggered connections,...

They do tend to give a slightly messy appearance, but the alternatives
were worse:

1) Stagger one half of the output stage slightly to the right (takes up
more space and doesn't shout "symmetry" to the reader).

2) Use loops for crossings (even messier in appearance).

3) Dotted and un-dotted crossings (error-prone because the
straight-through line misleads the eye in spite of the dot).

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 1:16 am
From: adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham)

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
> >> schematics (like for home appliances).
> >>
> > [...]
> >>... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
> >> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
> >> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
> >> jumping over another with no connection.
> >
> > I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and
> > extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which
> > could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be
> > staggered instead.
> >
> > e.g.
> > http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier.gif
>
> I'd rate this schematic as weird. Some parts are identified, some aren't
> and the junctions are complex for no reason.
>
> >> Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
> >> specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
> >> use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10,
> >> 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this
> >> some kind of Euro thing?
> >
> > I first saw it in German and Dutch publications. Once you have become
> > accustomed to it, it is quite easy to use and it is utterly unambiguous,
> > even when badly photocopied.
>
> Who photocopies stuff anymore, and periods aren't hard to read and never
> were, except in places that read right to left and switch periods to
> commas.

People often distribute low-resolution scans of printed circuit diagrams
or print them out on poor printers. Sometimes it is almost impossible
to read the figures, let alone distinguish a tiny dot.

> Banks don't print money is formats like 34$00. "Oh it's hard to read" is
> complete crap.

Actually the currency sign often comes first, which is a
long-established convention but very confusing the first time you meet
it.

>
> What's next- the germans and dutch replacing numbers with spelled out
> words?
>
> I'm surprised the diodes past the output stage aren't indetified as
> something like:
>
> 1N4k005 or
> ONE-NANO-FOUR KILO CIPHER CIPER V
>
> or something just as goofy.
>
> Why are the speakers just 6 ohms, while other resitors have place holders
> for digits?

The loudspeakers are nominally 6-ohms impedance (but actually much more
complex), so the markings on them aren't really component values - more
like a part description.

Which resistors only have place holders? I can quite believe that i
have made mistakes in the drawing, but I haven't spotted that one.

> I just don't get it- how does using multiple systems to represent simple
> data make things easier?
>
> This is why the finest and best technology comes from the USA. Instead of
> trying to rewrite a 20nm process in semiconductor manufacturing as 20nm0
> like europeans might form a committee to try to do, we've come out with
> 15nm process while everybody else is screwing around trying to solve
> problems that never existed.

I don't know if the convention was imposed on industry by a committee or
whether it was adopted by industry because it was found to have
advantages in certain circumstances. I agree that we sometimes have too
many committees, but most of Europe (except the U.K.) has acquired the
skill of appearing to comply with new regulations whilst actually
ignoring them.

>
> Just curious, has a committee come up with some cool new way to write
> voltages too?
>
> The amp uses +/- 30. Should that be written as 30v0 and (30v0) for the
> negative rail?
>
> Afer all, a "-" sign is too confusing and might indicate and error that
> was crossed out, or a period that was damaged during a recent facsimile
> transmission of poorly risographed copy of schematic.
>
> Is 5kV now 5k0?

I think you may have (deliberately ?) misunderstood the reason for that
convention. It saves space on small components and is unambiguous.
There is no need to use it for voltages (although "1v1" is easier to
write than 1.1v and less likely to be mistaken for 11v).

The convention of three numbers ("104" = 100K) is even smaller to print
but the interpretation is not as obvious until you get used to it.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 2:12 am
From: "Arfa Daily"

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:hvk3bu$3ju$1@reader1.panix.com...
> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
>> schematics (like for home appliances).
>>
>> Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are
>> good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the
>> ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional
>
> I find rectangles obnoxious, unless somebody from europe is drawing
> something in front of me.
>
>> zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even
>> here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that
>> took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs
>> and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper).
>>
>> Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
>> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
>> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
>> jumping over another with no connection.
>
> I was taught the half-loop shape first, then moved to the dots and no
> dots. It seemed like how you're taught to ties shoes in a really complex
> method of making two rabbit ears first, then tying them.
>
>> Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
>> specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
>> use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10,
>> 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this
>> some kind of Euro thing?
>
> I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up
> with it and why?

Can you really not understand it ? Or are you being deliberately obtuse ? It
has now been explained to the point where a child could understand it. I
think it was actually me who you first saw using it here, and I'm pretty
sure that we went through it all for your benefit at the time ...

Arfa

== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 2:29 am
From: "Dave Plowman (News)"

In article <hvk3bu$3ju$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> > Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
> > specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
> > use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance:
> > 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation.
> > Is this some kind of Euro thing?

> I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up
> with it and why?

It's been around on this side of the pond for many a year. It uses fewer
characters and no chance of not seeing that little full stop in a poorly
copied diagram. Like everything else you need to get used to it, though.

--
*If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 6:30 am
From: Bruce Esquibel

Adrian Tuddenham <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

> They certainly look strange when you have been used to the
> point-contact symbol, but you must admit they give a clear
> representation of a junction transistor.

No they don't.

You guys talk about faded photocopies and the usage of 2.2K vs. 2K2, it ever
occur to you a faded photocopy of the BassAmplifier2.gif, those transistors
come out looking like diodes?

I'm with Dave, I never seen that either.

Plus, what the hell is the S-N-U on the tip35c's and R-G-O on the tip36'c?

I can't find a single datasheet for them that uses anything else besides
E-B-C.

That diagram is terrible.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 7:06 am
From: adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham)

Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:

> Adrian Tuddenham <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > They certainly look strange when you have been used to the
> > point-contact symbol, but you must admit they give a clear
> > representation of a junction transistor.
>
> No they don't.
>
> You guys talk about faded photocopies and the usage of 2.2K vs. 2K2, it ever
> occur to you a faded photocopy of the BassAmplifier2.gif, those transistors
> come out looking like diodes?

Perhaps, but there aren't many diodes with three wire connections that
they could be mistaken for. The direction of the arrows might be lost
if they became blobby, but so would the arrows on the point-contact
symbol.

> I'm with Dave, I never seen that either.

It is unusual nowadays, but if you had been designing in the 1960s you
would have come across it from time to time.

> Plus, what the hell is the S-N-U on the tip35c's and R-G-O on the tip36'c?

Slate-Brown-Blue. Red-Green-Orange. It is the colour code of the
wires. The output transistors are mounted on individual heat sinks and
connected to the rest of the amplifier by a wiring loom, so the colour
code is helpful for fault-finding.

> I can't find a single datasheet for them that uses anything else besides
> E-B-C.

I didn't think there was any need for E-B-C as that should be obvious
from the symbols.

> That diagram is terrible.

We were discussing our preferred symbols and that diagram illustrates my
preferences. My personal dislikes are:

1) The crossing & dot convention.

2) Transistors and valves shown as a collection of electrodes floating
in space without envelopes.

3) Power supply rails all mixed up with the earth rail at the bottom of
the drawing.

For an example of a truly horrible circuit diagram see:
<http://www.audiosharing.com/archive/western/we_amp/pdf/No.8.pdf>

When re-drawn it makes a lot more sense:
< http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/images/WE8a.gif>

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 8:59 am
From: "Arfa Daily"

"Adrian Tuddenham" <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1jke3p0.aabxi6jodbawN%adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
> Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>> Adrian Tuddenham <adrian@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > They certainly look strange when you have been used to the
>> > point-contact symbol, but you must admit they give a clear
>> > representation of a junction transistor.
>>
>> No they don't.
>>
>> You guys talk about faded photocopies and the usage of 2.2K vs. 2K2, it
>> ever
>> occur to you a faded photocopy of the BassAmplifier2.gif, those
>> transistors
>> come out looking like diodes?
>
> Perhaps, but there aren't many diodes with three wire connections that
> they could be mistaken for. The direction of the arrows might be lost
> if they became blobby, but so would the arrows on the point-contact
> symbol.
>

The symbol for an adjustable zener, used typically in switch mode power
supplies, looks pretty similar :-)

Arfa

== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 9:31 am
From: whit3rd

On Jun 19, 3:29 pm, PlainBil...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I prefer the 'old' style - zig-zag lines for resistors, parallel lines
> for non-polar capacitors, etc.

That's OK for digital work, but for RF or high Z, your capacitor
symbol needs to have one line, one curve, as appropriate.

Another subtlety: if the tube symbol has a dot, it's OK to see
a plate glow. No dot, that glow means ... too much current.

== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 9:55 am
From: Cydrome Leader

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> "David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:4c1d00fe$0$2388$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>> On 6/19/2010 8:35 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus:
>>
>>> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
>>>> schematics (like for home appliances).
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>... wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the modern
>>>>approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
>>>> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
>>>> jumping over another with no connection.
>>>
>>> I find the 'gap' convention is easy to draw (with a computer) and
>>> extremely easy to read. It also looks tidy. Four-way junctions which
>>> could be mistaken for crossings should never be used, they should be
>>> staggered instead.
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>> http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/compton/images/BassAmplifier.gif
>>
>> BZZZZZZT! Fail.
>>
>> While the gap thing looks OK for non-crossing wires, I have to ding the
>> drafts-person of that schematic for the following:
>>
>> o Idiosyncratic symbols for electrolytic cazapitors[1]
>> o Idiosyncratic ground symbol (one horizontal line????)
>> o And no, I disagree about those offsets for connecting wires.
>>
>> That's totally unnecessary here: it would be quite obvious that all those
>> vertical wires connect to what is obviously a bus or rail. A well-drawn
>> dot is all that's needed there.
>>
>> (And I don't much like their transistor symbols either)
>>
>>
>> [1] With apologies to J. Liebermann.
>>
>
> I must say that I don't really like the staggered connections, but what's
> wrong with the transistor symbols ? And the single heavy horizontal line for
> the 0v rail, is very common this side of the pond. 0v rails always used to
> be shown as a heavy horizontal line right across the schematic, sometimes
> with a chassis symbol attached as well. These days, most schematics are so
> complex, that the 0v line is now left out, and 'abbreviated' to individual
> short heavy lines at each connection point on the schematic. The
> electrolytic symbol is not, however, the one commonly used here, which is a
> pair of rectangles, one filled in for the -ve side, and the other open for
> the +ve side. Sometimes, the American convention of one straight and one
> curved plate, is used.
>
> Arfa
>

Americans also do crazy things like just write a + sign next to the anode
if two parallel lines of equal size are used to represent a capacitor.

On the other hand, only the cathode is marked on electrolytics for some
reason. Is there a great story behind this?

== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 10:01 am
From: Cydrome Leader

Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
> news:hvk3bu$3ju$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>>> Someone else made a comment in another thread here about weird
>>> schematics (like for home appliances).
>>>
>>> Wanted to get a small discussion going on that topic. My take: there are
>>> good and bad standards for schematics. Personally, I can't stand the
>>> ones that use rectangle shapes for resistors, instead of the traditional
>>
>> I find rectangles obnoxious, unless somebody from europe is drawing
>> something in front of me.
>>
>>> zigzag that [insert name of deity here] intended to be used. (And even
>>> here there are lots of variations, like old-fashioned schematics that
>>> took this symbol rather literally and sometimes had ten or twelve zigs
>>> and zags, as if an actual resistor was being constructed on paper).
>>>
>>> Likewise the wire-connecting/jumping convention: here I much prefer the
>>> modern approach, which is to use a dot for a connection and no dot for
>>> no connection, rather than the clumsy "loop" to indicate one wire
>>> jumping over another with no connection.
>>
>> I was taught the half-loop shape first, then moved to the dots and no
>> dots. It seemed like how you're taught to ties shoes in a really complex
>> method of making two rabbit ears first, then tying them.
>>
>>> Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
>>> specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
>>> use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance: 10,
>>> 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation. Is this
>>> some kind of Euro thing?
>>
>> I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up
>> with it and why?
>
> Can you really not understand it ? Or are you being deliberately obtuse ? It
> has now been explained to the point where a child could understand it. I
> think it was actually me who you first saw using it here, and I'm pretty
> sure that we went through it all for your benefit at the time ...
>
> Arfa
>

That's funny as writing out values the correct and conventional way
doesn't need explanation and a child can follow it, and it's been that way
for decades.

I'm still waiting to see values for money being written out as 44"euro
symbol"66 with cents after the end instead of 44.66.

periods are too confusing, commas are too confusing! help, we're all
stupid these days!

== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 10:06 am
From: Cydrome Leader

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <hvk3bu$3ju$1@reader1.panix.com>,
> Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>> > Regarding resistor values: Who the hell came up with that new way of
>> > specifying resistance values, like "10R" "or 5K6" or whatever? And why
>> > use this system? I've always used the plain value of the resistance:
>> > 10, 56, 5.6K, 56K, etc. Simple, obvious, requires no interpretation.
>> > Is this some kind of Euro thing?
>
>> I first saw that on this newsgroup. My question is what idiots came up
>> with it and why?
>
> It's been around on this side of the pond for many a year. It uses fewer
> characters and no chance of not seeing that little full stop in a poorly
> copied diagram. Like everything else you need to get used to it, though.

I saw an original diagram for a bass amplifier earlier in this post.

it looked awful and it wasn't a copy. The text annotations looked like
they came from a 9 dot matrix printer and were small and hard to read. The
transistors looked lopsided and weird too. That's how it was from the
start.

I've seriously seen wet-type microfiche printer printouts that look better
and are easier to follow.

Getting bored and changing how you do stuff every few years doesn't make
schematics better looking, eaaier to follow or less ambigious by itself.

So, when do you start to write 1.5km as 1km5?

== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 10:11 am
From: Cydrome Leader

Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:29:45 -0700, PlainBill47@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Lines should be drawn with the little loop when crossing lines do not
>>connect, a dot when they do. Again, redundancy.
>
> Crossings (four-way intersections) never connect. Three-way
> intersections always connect. Stick with that convention and neither the
> humpie or a dot are needed, although dots do "look right."
>
> There is an authorized reprint of H&H's "How to Draw Schematic Diagrams"
> from AoE Appx E over at
> http://opencircuitdesign.com/xcircuit/goodschem/goodschem.html

hahaha.

the "awful" schematic is great. All it needs are euro-notations, then to
be rendered in a small terrible font then saved as a gif.

== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 12:49 pm
From: David Nebenzahl

On 6/20/2010 7:06 AM Adrian Tuddenham spake thus:

> My personal dislikes are:
>
> 2) Transistors and valves shown as a collection of electrodes floating
> in space without envelopes.

Agree with this 100%. No need to be so chintzy!

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Surge Protectors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/9a42e9c9a84828d9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 8:03 am
From: bud--

westom wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:55 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> Still missing - your source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
>> effective - just like westom.
>> And westom has been looking for years.
>
> Your job is to promote plug-in protectors.

Poor westom just keeps repeating the same lies, just like Josef Goebbels.

If he had valid technical arguments he would not have to try to
discredit those that expose his drivel.

My only association with surge suppressors is that I have 2 of them.

> You
> cannot even post any spec numbers that define protection from each
> type of surge.

"Each type of surge" is more nonsense. SquareD, amongst others, does not
have specs for "each type of surge".

I provided a link to the specs I have provided in many threads -always
ignored by westom, just like he ignores anything that conflicts with his
religious belief in earthing.

Apparently poor westom believes plug-in suppressors do not work, so he
believes specs cannot possibly exist.

> Destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules. Where does
> that energy dissipate? Bud says that energy just magically
> disappears.

Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from seeing what has been
said in this thread, and numerous other threads.

For incoming power wires, at about 6kV there is arc over from service
busbars to the enclosure. After the arc stabilized the arc is hundreds
of volts. The enclosure is connected to the earthing electrodes, so this
dumps the vast majority of the incoming surge energy to earth. The
neutral (in the US) is also always tied to the system ground at the
service, so energy coming in on the neutral is directly earthed.
Apparently that is all magic for westom.

For a plug-in suppressor, the impedance of the branch circuit wiring
greatly limits the current that can reach the suppressor. That greatly
limits the energy that can reach the suppressor. NIST surge guru
Martzloff looked at the energy that could reach the suppressor and was
surprised that it was 35 joules or less. In most of his tests it was
under 1 joule. That is with service surges up to the maximum that there
is any reasonable probability of occurring.

As Sjouke wrote, the MOV dissipates an energy equal to the clamp voltage
times the current times the time. For a plug-in suppressor the current
is very limited by the branch circuit impedance. And the time is very
short - well under 100 microseconds. Fuses or circuit breakers do not
provide protection because they are nowhere near fast enough - they
won't open during a surge.

Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing a surge - that
reason poor westom believes they do not work. The IEEE surge guide
explains how they work (starting pdf page40). They clamp the voltage on
all wires to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage between all wires
going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment.

Service panel suppressors also work by clamping the voltage - from hot
wires to ground/earthing electrode (and hot-to-hot). Because the current
can be up to 10,000A per hot (essentially zero probability of higher
current, at least for houses) they can dissipate significant energy. But
the vast majority of the energy is dissipated in the earth by the
service earth electrode connection. The largest surges (lightning) are
under 100 microseconds. Suppressors are readily available that will
provide protection. With thousands of amps to the earthing electrode,
the potential of the building "ground" can rise far above "absolute"
earth potential.

Neither service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors protect by
absorbing the surge energy. But in the process of protecting, some of
the energy is absorbed.

MOVs are fast enough to protect from the fastest surge. And if there was
an extremely fast rise time it would be lowered by the impedance of the
source wiring.

All of the above is from NIST expert Martzloff, or other experts in the
field.

westom ignores it all.

> Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a surge earthed 8000 volts
> destructively through a nearby TV.

The lie repeated. Poor westom tries to make an example that explains
protection say the opposite.

The plug-in suppressor in this IEEE surge guide example protects the TV
connected to it. It lowers the surge voltage at a second TV, although
its job is to protect the equipment connected to it. It is a lie that
the suppressor at TV1 damages TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

> Why?
> The house did not earth via a 'whole
> house' protector.

In the IEEE example the surge comes in on the cable service, and high
voltage results from a ground wire that is too long. westomn's favored
service panel suppressor would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
IEEE says, for distant entrance points, that "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

> A protector is
> only as effective as its earth ground.

westom's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka
reality).
westom is the poster child for cognitive dissonance.

Still never explained - why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day
when they are hit by lightning?

> He is paid to
> promote plug-in protectors.

The lie repeated.

But still never seen - any reliable source that agrees with westom that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never seen - answers to 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?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don�t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

The IEEE guide, in particular, is really an excellent source of
information from a reliable source. I really recommend anyone who is
interested in surge protection read it.

--
bud--

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 8:39 am
From: westom

On Jun 19, 8:20 pm, "David" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It is
> a voltage clamp. You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
> current to ground just like you do with any load. The energy
> is totally dissipated in the MOV.

Now do the numbers. How does that hundred joule MOV absorb energy
that is hundreds of thousands of joules? You are reciting the myths
promoted by plug-in protectors.

For example, how to get the protector to last longer? Increase its
joules rating. Then the entire protector absorbs "LESS" energy.
Protector that absorbs a surge is the urban myth promoted by those who
never learned this stuff. This 100 years old technology.

So that energy dissipates harmlessly in earth - not inside the
building - the protector must make a short ('less than 10 foot')
connection to single point earth ground. No protector is protection.
None. A protector is only a connecting device. Either it connects a
20,000 amp surge harmlessly to earth. Or it does nothing. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which those
educated by advertising never learn.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 8:54 am
From: westom

On Jun 19, 12:25 pm, Jeffrey D Angus <jan...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> What the plug-in suppressors rely on is the impedance (generally
> inductive) in the house wiring to limit the rise time of thesurgeuntil the circuit breaker (or fusable parts) have time to
> react by opening up.

No surge protector is too slow. That wiring is why plug-in
protectors are not earthed. And why Bud will not discuss wire
impedance and earth ground.

bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a plug-in protecting earthing
a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. He hopes you do
not grasp the point in his IEEE citation.

So let's put numbers to it. Let's say the plug-in protector and TV
are 50 feet of wire from the breaker box. That means it is less than
0.2 ohms resistance. And maybe 120 ohms impedance. So that protector
will earth a trivial 100 amp surge? 100 amps times 120 ohms means the
protector and TV are at maybe 12,000 volts. Why did the protector
earth that surge 8000 volts through the TV? AC electric wire
impedance meant the surge had to obtain earth 8000 volts destructively
through the TV.

Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on bud's plug-in
protectors? Because telcos can suffer about 100 surges per
thunderstorm. So telcos put a protector as close to earth ground as
possible. And up to 50 meters separated from electronics. That
separation means increases protection. Why? See numbers in that
above paragraph.

Whereas an average homeowner suffers maybe one surge every seven
years. A telco suffers at least 100 with each storm. So telcos do
not locate protectors adjacent to electronics. Telcos always earth
'whole house' protectors for the same reasons it was done 100 year ago
– a low impedance connection to single point ground. Protector must
be as close to earth as possible (lowest impedance to single point
ground) AND works best when distant from electronics.

Learn that no protector works by absorbing energy. That is why the
protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground can
even earth that surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. A
majority only believe the advertising myths - that protectors
magically make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically
disappear. That myth sells plug-in protectors. Any location that
cannot have damage (ie munitions dumps) instead earths a 'whole house'
protector. Then energy never enters a building. Then energy
harmlessly dissipates outside the building in earth ground.

Protection is always about where energy dissipates. IOW a protector
is only as effective as its earth ground. A reality that would harm
bud's profit margins.

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 11:28 am
From: Jim Yanik

"David" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in news:hvjmsg$4v4$1@news.eternal-
september.org:

>
>>> Bullshit. The Mov dissipates (Umov)*I*T, or
>>> Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds.
>>> Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time.
>>> The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting.
>>
>> I never said it did.
>> the MOV voltage rating is the voltage when it changes
>> state and drops to a
>> low resistance to shunt the surge to GROUND.
>> Now,how low a resistance in the conducting state is
>> another matter.
>> that's dependent on the MOV design/ratings.
>>
>>
>>> Where did you learn about electricity??????
>>
>> USAF PME School,1971.
>>
>>> Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV,
>>
>> yes,I said the MOV's dissipation would be
>> "minimal",....compared to the
>> total energy the MOV was passing to ground.
>> what energy the MOV dissipates can easily be enough to
>> blow it apart.
>> I've seen it happen many times.
>> But the MOV is not dissipating the total energy of the
>> surge with it's
>> suicide.
>
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik
>> at
>> localnet
>> dot com
>
> A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It is
> a voltage clamp.

no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.

> You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
> current to ground just like you do with any load. The energy
> is totally dissipated in the MOV.
>
> David
>
>
>

totally wrong.
Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest you read it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 11:30 am
From: Jim Yanik

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:hvl00i$lma$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> "Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
> news:hvk9c7$hrm$2@reader1.panix.com...
>> William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test
> suppressors.
>>>>> If they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have
>>>>> said
> so.
>
>>>> Hilarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge
> supression
>>>> devices?
>
>>> It was, 20 years ago. I don't think you get the point, though.
>
>> So what is the point? John Dvorak wrote a story about surge
>> supressors and how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his
>> CompuAdd 486sx tower?
>
> The point is that they were performing lab tests on the suppressors.
> These tests included determining the clamping voltage. (I don't
> remember if they were tested to destruction.) The tests were
> presumably performed in accordance with industry-accepted standards.
>
>
>

"clamping" is a misuse of the word WRT surge protectors.
It misleads people,as in "david" s post.

"trigger voltage" might more accurate.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 12:27 pm
From: "David"

>>
>> A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It
>> is
>> a voltage clamp.
>
> no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.
>
>> You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
>> current to ground just like you do with any load. The
>> energy
>> is totally dissipated in the MOV.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
> totally wrong.
> Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest
> you read it.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com

Jim, I am not going to get into a flame war over this topic.
Maybe you should check this out:

<http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm>

David

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 12:39 pm
From: Jeffrey D Angus

David wrote:
> <http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm>

Amazing coincidence that they act much like the old NE-2 neon
bulb across the antenna leads of old receivers for protection.

They would conduct around 65 volts and suddenly go to near
zero impedance, safely shunting what ever energy on the antenna
line to ground.

And although most receiver inputs couldn't handle a steady state
of 65 volts (or 130 vpp), they could handle them long enough for
the neon bulb to conduct and then shunt them to ground.

Jeff

--
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 12:54 pm
From: mike

>
> <http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm>
>
> David

Hi,

I've been following this thread, and I got to wondering are there any
accepted methods to tell if a surge arrestor setup is still usable as
such? I've got a couple industrial 3-phase units that I'd like to
hook up to protect my incoming power, and though they pass the sniff
test I haven't quite convinced myself to add them to the electrical
panel yet. I only have single phase (in the US), but figure that gives
me a spare module that would just be left disconnected.

Anyone have any recommendations or guidance to lend?

Thanks,
Mike

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Simple hack to get $1500 to your home.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/cea0b65870534335?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 5:26 am
From: "Mark Zacharias"

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0sCdnWOh_dPISoHRnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> PeterD wrote:
>>
>> Ah, you know what they say: "Make it more expensive if no one wants it
>> at the current price..."
>
>
> It worked for my uncle when he sold his farm back in the '50s. No
> one wanted his mules for $25 each, so he waited a few weeks and offered
> them for $75 each. They sold the same day.
>
>

I sometimes see this on eBay. Never understood it really, though I'm sure it
works sometimes.

There was a really beautiful Yokogawa 5.5 digit multimeter which failed to
sell at 199.00 so the seller relisted at 299.00 then finally at 399.00.

Never did sell as far as I know...

Mark Z.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Simple hack to get $500 to your home
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/f72e1953ef81c894?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 20 2010 9:57 am
From: jolie

Simple hack to get $500 to your home at http://mastidunia.co.cc

Due to high security risks,i have hidden the cheque link in an
image. in that website on left side below search box, click on image
and enter your name and address where you want to receive your
cheque.please dont tell to anyone.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sci.electronics.repair"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en