Re: Daisy chain wireless routers

w_tom

On Dec 10, 3:45 am, bud-- <> wrote:
> It isn't practical to protect against direct lightning strike to a
> house - as in the Natural Philosopher post.
>
> For reliable information on surges and surge protection try:
> And also:
>
> The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
> NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

It is routine to have direct lightning strikes and no damage. But
many listen to Bud who promotes plug-in protectors. Others install
those grossly overpriced and ineffective protectors, suffer damage,
then assume nothing can provide protection.

Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates a plug-in protector
earthing a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV.
His citations warn of why plug-in protectors (without earth ground)
can create electronics damage. Instead we ignore myths; listen to
what electrical engineering publications say.

A recent technical discussion for electrical engineers state what is
required for surge protection. Earth ground and short connections to
earth. These front page reports from EE Times on 1 Oct and 8 Oct
2007 don't discuss Bud's products because its title is "Protecting
Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".



Routine is to have direct lightning strikes without damage. Even
more routine now that standards also require electronics (ie routers)
to withstand many thousands of volts without damage. All electronics
contain internal protection. Any protection that would work adjacent
to electronics is already inside electronics. But that internal
appliance protection may be overwhelmed if a direct lightning strike
is not earthed where wires enter the building. Earth a surge before
it enters the buildingso that internal protection in ALL electronics
is not overwhelmed. EE Times describes technical reality. Solutions
that were proven even 100 years ago are not found in products promoted
by Bud. Solutions can be implemented using products from Furse, et al
- properly earthed protectors.

Those who never learned how to make lightning irrelevant failed to
grasp old, well proven, and standard protection techniques. Using a
magic box that does not even claim to provide protection may result in
damage. So they assume nothing can avoid that damage. The problem: no
earth ground means no effective protection. Plug-in protectors even
connecting surges, destructively, through adjacent electronics. Bud's
magic box solutions don't even claim to provide protection. Ask him
for spec numbers. He remains mute because products he recommends make
no numerical protection claims in specs.

Bud's citations show a protector earthing a surge, destructively,
through a TV because the protector was too close to electronics and
too far from earth ground. Bud's citation is also blunt about what a
protector does: From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of

> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

No earthing? Then the surge energy must be dissipated elsewhere
such as destructively through household appliances. Protection means
direct strike energy is dissipated in earth - in direct contradiction
to every posted by Bud. What does Electrical Engineering Times
discuss for surge protection? Earthing. Earthing provides the
protection. The effective protector has that 'less than 3 meter'
connection to single point earth ground.

Those who are not myth purveryors (ie EE Times) bluntly state a
surge must be dissipated harmlessly in earth - which is why a
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Provided were
protectors that have that essential and required earthing connection:





Bud's grossly overpriced products (with massive profit margins)
don't provide that earthing connection. Somehow Bud's myths should be
believed while engineers in EE Times should be ignored? Would you
spend tens or 100 times less money for effective protection from
direct lightning strikes. Responsible manufacturers sell products
that solve the OPs problem - that are similar to what BT installs to
suffer surges and no damage - that have that necessary earthing
connection. No earth ground means no effective protection. Bud's
products do not even claim in specifications to provide protection.

w_tom

On Dec 10, 3:45 am, bud-- <> wrote:
> It isn't practical to protect against direct lightning strike to a
> house - as in the Natural Philosopher post.
>
> For reliable information on surges and surge protection try:
> And also:
>
> The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
> NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

It is routine to have direct lightning strikes and no damage. But
many listen to Bud who promotes plug-in protectors. Others install
those grossly overpriced and ineffective protectors, suffer damage,
then assume nothing can provide protection.

Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates a plug-in protector
earthing a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV.
His citations warn of why plug-in protectors (without earth ground)
can create electronics damage. Instead we ignore myths; listen to
what electrical engineering publications say.

A recent technical discussion for electrical engineers state what is
required for surge protection. Earth ground and short connections to
earth. These front page reports from EE Times on 1 Oct and 8 Oct
2007 don't discuss Bud's products because its title is "Protecting
Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".



Routine is to have direct lightning strikes without damage. Even
more routine now that standards also require electronics (ie routers)
to withstand many thousands of volts without damage. All electronics
contain internal protection. Any protection that would work adjacent
to electronics is already inside electronics. But that internal
appliance protection may be overwhelmed if a direct lightning strike
is not earthed where wires enter the building. Earth a surge before
it enters the buildingso that internal protection in ALL electronics
is not overwhelmed. EE Times describes technical reality. Solutions
that were proven even 100 years ago are not found in products promoted
by Bud. Solutions can be implemented using products from Furse, et al
- properly earthed protectors.

Those who never learned how to make lightning irrelevant failed to
grasp old, well proven, and standard protection techniques. Using a
magic box that does not even claim to provide protection may result in
damage. So they assume nothing can avoid that damage. The problem: no
earth ground means no effective protection. Plug-in protectors even
connecting surges, destructively, through adjacent electronics. Bud's
magic box solutions don't even claim to provide protection. Ask him
for spec numbers. He remains mute because products he recommends make
no numerical protection claims in specs.

Bud's citations show a protector earthing a surge, destructively,
through a TV because the protector was too close to electronics and
too far from earth ground. Bud's citation is also blunt about what a
protector does: From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of

> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

No earthing? Then the surge energy must be dissipated elsewhere
such as destructively through household appliances. Protection means
direct strike energy is dissipated in earth - in direct contradiction
to every posted by Bud. What does Electrical Engineering Times
discuss for surge protection? Earthing. Earthing provides the
protection. The effective protector has that 'less than 3 meter'
connection to single point earth ground.

Those who are not myth purveryors (ie EE Times) bluntly state a
surge must be dissipated harmlessly in earth - which is why a
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Provided were
protectors that have that essential and required earthing connection:





Bud's grossly overpriced products (with massive profit margins)
don't provide that earthing connection. Somehow Bud's myths should be
believed while engineers in EE Times should be ignored? Would you
spend tens or 100 times less money for effective protection from
direct lightning strikes. Responsible manufacturers sell products
that solve the OPs problem - that are similar to what BT installs to
suffer surges and no damage - that have that necessary earthing
connection. No earth ground means no effective protection. Bud's
products do not even claim in specifications to provide protection.

w_tom

On Dec 10, 3:45 am, bud-- <> wrote:
> It isn't practical to protect against direct lightning strike to a
> house - as in the Natural Philosopher post.
>
> For reliable information on surges and surge protection try:
> And also:
>
> The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
> NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

It is routine to have direct lightning strikes and no damage. But
many listen to Bud who promotes plug-in protectors. Others install
those grossly overpriced and ineffective protectors, suffer damage,
then assume nothing can provide protection.

Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates a plug-in protector
earthing a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV.
His citations warn of why plug-in protectors (without earth ground)
can create electronics damage. Instead we ignore myths; listen to
what electrical engineering publications say.

A recent technical discussion for electrical engineers state what is
required for surge protection. Earth ground and short connections to
earth. These front page reports from EE Times on 1 Oct and 8 Oct
2007 don't discuss Bud's products because its title is "Protecting
Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".



Routine is to have direct lightning strikes without damage. Even
more routine now that standards also require electronics (ie routers)
to withstand many thousands of volts without damage. All electronics
contain internal protection. Any protection that would work adjacent
to electronics is already inside electronics. But that internal
appliance protection may be overwhelmed if a direct lightning strike
is not earthed where wires enter the building. Earth a surge before
it enters the buildingso that internal protection in ALL electronics
is not overwhelmed. EE Times describes technical reality. Solutions
that were proven even 100 years ago are not found in products promoted
by Bud. Solutions can be implemented using products from Furse, et al
- properly earthed protectors.

Those who never learned how to make lightning irrelevant failed to
grasp old, well proven, and standard protection techniques. Using a
magic box that does not even claim to provide protection may result in
damage. So they assume nothing can avoid that damage. The problem: no
earth ground means no effective protection. Plug-in protectors even
connecting surges, destructively, through adjacent electronics. Bud's
magic box solutions don't even claim to provide protection. Ask him
for spec numbers. He remains mute because products he recommends make
no numerical protection claims in specs.

Bud's citations show a protector earthing a surge, destructively,
through a TV because the protector was too close to electronics and
too far from earth ground. Bud's citation is also blunt about what a
protector does: From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of

> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

No earthing? Then the surge energy must be dissipated elsewhere
such as destructively through household appliances. Protection means
direct strike energy is dissipated in earth - in direct contradiction
to every posted by Bud. What does Electrical Engineering Times
discuss for surge protection? Earthing. Earthing provides the
protection. The effective protector has that 'less than 3 meter'
connection to single point earth ground.

Those who are not myth purveryors (ie EE Times) bluntly state a
surge must be dissipated harmlessly in earth - which is why a
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Provided were
protectors that have that essential and required earthing connection:





Bud's grossly overpriced products (with massive profit margins)
don't provide that earthing connection. Somehow Bud's myths should be
believed while engineers in EE Times should be ignored? Would you
spend tens or 100 times less money for effective protection from
direct lightning strikes. Responsible manufacturers sell products
that solve the OPs problem - that are similar to what BT installs to
suffer surges and no damage - that have that necessary earthing
connection. No earth ground means no effective protection. Bud's
products do not even claim in specifications to provide protection.