On Oct 23, 1:15 pm, w_tom <w_t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 11:32 am, bud-- <budn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > =93Intruder alarm systems using wires between sensors and their
central
> > control unit can be disturbed - and damaged in severe cases - by
> > lightning striking close to the house. The wires necessary for this
> > type of installation extend to all points of the house and act as an
> > antenna system that collects energy from the field generated by the
> > lightning strike, ...
>
> Bud forgets to mention how easy that problem is eliminated even by
> protection inside panels.
> Bud has hyped a fear and ignored the solution that already makes the
> problem irrelevant.
..
I said direct pickup was low energy and terminals "*may* not be
protected". Not all equipment is protected. I tried to cover the
sources of surge damage. Martzloff says in the NIST guide (quoted
above) direct pickup can be a problem.
..
> Meanwhile Martzloff describes in the very first conclusion of his
> IEEE paper how a plug-in (point of connection) protector can
> contribute to damage of adjacent electronics (as also demonstrated on
> Page 42 Figure 8):
..
w_ likes to forget that Martzloff said in the same technical paper
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed
[multi****t plug-in surge suppressor]."
Martzloff says in the NIST guide plug-in suppressors are effective.
The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors are effective.
Poor w_ doesn=92t think they work.
--
bud--
