Lightning Strike

bobkiely (Remove NOSPAM) wrote:
John:
This question may be outdated by new regulations and modern technology but,
was there any discharge of PCB's due to the explosion of the transformer?
BK

no even tho we are rural as heck here they did get rid of all ther old
pcb transformers and mine was installed in 99


John Rutz
Z5 New Mexico

never miss a good oportunity to shut up

see my pond at:

http://www.fuerjefe.com

w_tom wrote:

Others are still confused. They actually think a plug-in
UPS claims protection from such surges even though the
manufacturer makes no such claim. A UPS connects appliance
directly to AC mains when not in battery backup mode. No
protection there. Protectors only work when they connect the
incoming surge to surge protection - earth ground.

While that is true, of the UPS units I've been shopping for, they have
surge protection built in as well. Check the specs.

w_tom wrote:

Others are still confused. They actually think a plug-in
UPS claims protection from such surges even though the
manufacturer makes no such claim. A UPS connects appliance
directly to AC mains when not in battery backup mode. No
protection there. Protectors only work when they connect the
incoming surge to surge protection - earth ground.

While that is true, of the UPS units I've been shopping for, they have
surge protection built in as well. Check the specs.

Do those UPSes have surge protection? Which modes? Oh,
they forgot to mention there are different modes of surges?
What numbers do they list for each type of protection? Post
those specifications for a UPS that claims effective surge
protection. I have been reading those specs for decades. I
read the datasheets for components used to make surge
protectors. Where is this claim on plug-in surge protectors -
the URL?

As noted previously, they claim protection from one type of
surge. They don't claim protection from the surge that
typically damages transistors. Lying by telling half truths
will get a consumer to claim abilities that the manufacturer
does not even claim.

One plug-in protector, using same components in same
circuit, was more honest:
SL Waber EP63 Power Master
This Surge suppressor is not a lightning arrestor and may not
protect against lightning induced voltage surges.

Why would APC, using same circuit, do what SL Waber could
not? Quite frankly, APC does not claim that protection
either. A surge protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. No way around the most critical 'system' component -
earth ground - that Franklin demonstrated in 1752 and that
would be necessary to have protected that pond.

John Hines wrote:
w_tom wrote:
Others are still confused. They actually think a plug-in
UPS claims protection from such surges even though the
manufacturer makes no such claim. A UPS connects appliance
directly to AC mains when not in battery backup mode. No
protection there. Protectors only work when they connect the
incoming surge to surge protection - earth ground.

While that is true, of the UPS units I've been shopping for, they
have surge protection built in as well. Check the specs.

Do those UPSes have surge protection? Which modes? Oh,
they forgot to mention there are different modes of surges?
What numbers do they list for each type of protection? Post
those specifications for a UPS that claims effective surge
protection. I have been reading those specs for decades. I
read the datasheets for components used to make surge
protectors. Where is this claim on plug-in surge protectors -
the URL?

As noted previously, they claim protection from one type of
surge. They don't claim protection from the surge that
typically damages transistors. Lying by telling half truths
will get a consumer to claim abilities that the manufacturer
does not even claim.

One plug-in protector, using same components in same
circuit, was more honest:
SL Waber EP63 Power Master
This Surge suppressor is not a lightning arrestor and may not
protect against lightning induced voltage surges.

Why would APC, using same circuit, do what SL Waber could
not? Quite frankly, APC does not claim that protection
either. A surge protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. No way around the most critical 'system' component -
earth ground - that Franklin demonstrated in 1752 and that
would be necessary to have protected that pond.

John Hines wrote:
w_tom wrote:
Others are still confused. They actually think a plug-in
UPS claims protection from such surges even though the
manufacturer makes no such claim. A UPS connects appliance
directly to AC mains when not in battery backup mode. No
protection there. Protectors only work when they connect the
incoming surge to surge protection - earth ground.

While that is true, of the UPS units I've been shopping for, they
have surge protection built in as well. Check the specs.

Which industry standard would that be? Computer Business
Equipment Manufacturer's Association? National Electrical
Code? Underwriter's Laboratory? CSA? ISO? FCC Part 68? US
Army's TM5-690?

Which type of transients does APC claim to protect from? As
stated previously, protection from a surge that typically does
not exist. They do not claim protection from surges that
typically damage electronics - or even ponds. So they make an
ambiguous statement about protecting from "some" spikes and
surges. They don't even say which ones, how long, or how
big. In typical 'junk science' reasoning, they fail to
provide numbers.

Lets look at one standard that a surge protector claims to
meet - UL1449 2nd Edition. UL does not test that anything
works. UL only tests for threats to human safety. Testing
for UL1449 does not care if the surge protector works or even
survives. Survival is not relevant to human safety. UL1449
is about protecting humans from dangerous conditions such as
shock and fire. UL1449 is not about testing to protect a
transistor.

Worded to make many think that UL1449 means a surge
protector is effective. Actually, a surge protector can meet
the criteria for UL1449 by making the protector less
effective. What kind of protection is that? One that does
not burn down the house but also does not protect
transistors. That is effective protection?

Real world surge protectors, such as Polyphaser, don't even
discuss their products in application notes. Instead they
discuss the most critical component of a surge protection
'system' - earth ground. Where does APC even mention earth
ground? Where does APC even ask the homeowner to verify that
most critical 'system' component? You have the paperwork.
Where do they discuss earthing - the component that even
Franklin demonstrated in 1752? APC is mute because they don't
claim protection from that type of surge - the surge that
destroys transistors. Missing statement from APC means they
don't even claim that protection.

You know a surge protector is not effective IF 1) it has no
dedicated connection to earth ground or 2) it avoids all
discussion about earthing. That APC is ineffective twice over
- meets both criteria for ineffective protector. Its called
lying by telling half truths. They make ambiguous statements
because they don't claim protection from surges that damaged
electronics. Where are the specs - with numbers - that claim
common mode surge protection? Real world protectors provide
those numbers.

Back to same concept - why lightning struck that pond is
also why Franklin demonstrated effective protection. Same
protection so well proven that your local phone company,
connected to overhead wires everywhere, need not shutdown
phone service for thunderstorms. All use the most critical
component in lightning protection. Be it a lightning rod over
the pond or a surge protector - effective protection is about
earthing a surge, which that APC UPS does not do and avoids
mentioning.

A surge protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Polyphaser, an industry benchmark, discusses earthing
extensively in application notes. Where did APC even mention
the word 'earth' even once? Where do they put numbers to
their claims. Where do they even specify which industry
standards? They meet the standard that says the surge
protector will not kill you - human protection. Where is the
claim for transistor protection?. No earth ground means no
effective protection - as was well proven even in 1930s
research papers.

One electronic device essential to ponds and easily
destroyed by surges is that GFCI. Just another reason why
'whole house' protector is important and why a lightning rod
over that pond might be considered (depending on the frequency
of CG lightning).


Anne Lurie wrote:

"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Lightning is not stopped, blocked, or absorbed. Others are
still confused. They actually think a plug-in UPS claims
protection from such surges even though the manufacturer makes
no such claim. A UPS connects appliance directly to AC mains
when not in battery backup mode. No protection there.
Protectors only work when they connect the incoming surge to
surge protection - earth ground.

Well, I happened to have the paperwork from one of our APC UPS
units right here, and it says (in part): "Power line transients
that APC products have been designed to protect against, as
recognized by industry standards, include spikes and surges on
AC power lines."

Anne Lurie
Raleigh, NC

Which industry standard would that be? Computer Business
Equipment Manufacturer's Association? National Electrical
Code? Underwriter's Laboratory? CSA? ISO? FCC Part 68? US
Army's TM5-690?

Which type of transients does APC claim to protect from? As
stated previously, protection from a surge that typically does
not exist. They do not claim protection from surges that
typically damage electronics - or even ponds. So they make an
ambiguous statement about protecting from "some" spikes and
surges. They don't even say which ones, how long, or how
big. In typical 'junk science' reasoning, they fail to
provide numbers.

Lets look at one standard that a surge protector claims to
meet - UL1449 2nd Edition. UL does not test that anything
works. UL only tests for threats to human safety. Testing
for UL1449 does not care if the surge protector works or even
survives. Survival is not relevant to human safety. UL1449
is about protecting humans from dangerous conditions such as
shock and fire. UL1449 is not about testing to protect a
transistor.

Worded to make many think that UL1449 means a surge
protector is effective. Actually, a surge protector can meet
the criteria for UL1449 by making the protector less
effective. What kind of protection is that? One that does
not burn down the house but also does not protect
transistors. That is effective protection?

Real world surge protectors, such as Polyphaser, don't even
discuss their products in application notes. Instead they
discuss the most critical component of a surge protection
'system' - earth ground. Where does APC even mention earth
ground? Where does APC even ask the homeowner to verify that
most critical 'system' component? You have the paperwork.
Where do they discuss earthing - the component that even
Franklin demonstrated in 1752? APC is mute because they don't
claim protection from that type of surge - the surge that
destroys transistors. Missing statement from APC means they
don't even claim that protection.

You know a surge protector is not effective IF 1) it has no
dedicated connection to earth ground or 2) it avoids all
discussion about earthing. That APC is ineffective twice over
- meets both criteria for ineffective protector. Its called
lying by telling half truths. They make ambiguous statements
because they don't claim protection from surges that damaged
electronics. Where are the specs - with numbers - that claim
common mode surge protection? Real world protectors provide
those numbers.

Back to same concept - why lightning struck that pond is
also why Franklin demonstrated effective protection. Same
protection so well proven that your local phone company,
connected to overhead wires everywhere, need not shutdown
phone service for thunderstorms. All use the most critical
component in lightning protection. Be it a lightning rod over
the pond or a surge protector - effective protection is about
earthing a surge, which that APC UPS does not do and avoids
mentioning.

A surge protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Polyphaser, an industry benchmark, discusses earthing
extensively in application notes. Where did APC even mention
the word 'earth' even once? Where do they put numbers to
their claims. Where do they even specify which industry
standards? They meet the standard that says the surge
protector will not kill you - human protection. Where is the
claim for transistor protection?. No earth ground means no
effective protection - as was well proven even in 1930s
research papers.

One electronic device essential to ponds and easily
destroyed by surges is that GFCI. Just another reason why
'whole house' protector is important and why a lightning rod
over that pond might be considered (depending on the frequency
of CG lightning).


Anne Lurie wrote:

"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Lightning is not stopped, blocked, or absorbed. Others are
still confused. They actually think a plug-in UPS claims
protection from such surges even though the manufacturer makes
no such claim. A UPS connects appliance directly to AC mains
when not in battery backup mode. No protection there.
Protectors only work when they connect the incoming surge to
surge protection - earth ground.

Well, I happened to have the paperwork from one of our APC UPS
units right here, and it says (in part): "Power line transients
that APC products have been designed to protect against, as
recognized by industry standards, include spikes and surges on
AC power lines."

Anne Lurie
Raleigh, NC

Bern et al,

Lightning is a definitely a phenomenon. I had a friend with a computer with
two surge protectors, and a voltage regulator on his computer system and
when his home got zapped the electrical discharge traveled through the two
surge protectors destroying them, and then, evidently followed on the
outside of his voltage regulator and when it got to the end of the line
where his computer was it melted the case on his monitor and fried the
inside of the CPU case and blew up his printer.

I had an electrical surge take out one of the telephone jacks and kill my
modem. Now-a-days, if it is raining, and certainly if there is thunder, the
computer does not get turned on and if heard while being used, it is
immediately shut off. I also the unplug the main plug from the wall socket.
I have a surge protector and a UPS, put I certainly don't take chances with
lightning. In addition, when I got a new phone jack I setup the line to my
computer where when I am finished with using my computer I disconnected the
telephone line to isolate the computer from telephone line.

Tom L.L.
===============================
"bmuller" wrote in message
s.com...

"Anne Lurie" wrote in message
.com...

Well, I happened to have the paperwork from one of our APC UPS units
right
here, and it says (in part): "Power line transients that APC products
have
been designed to protect against, as recognized by industry standards,
include spikes and surges on AC power lines."
This reply is not targeted at the last poster, but at what seems to be a
general bit of confusion in the group.

There are spikes and surges on power lines as a result of everyday
industrial usage in the general area. Surge suppressors work well for
these. Most commercial surge suppressors these days use a 3 prong plug
which should provide an adequate ground for this purpose. A lightning
strike miles away may also lead to a spike which is amenable to
a surge suppressor. But, a direct lightning strike in the close
neighborhood
can generate lots of power, and no surge suppressor will protect from
that
(lightning, in fact, acts so bizzarrely that I doubt anything (including
lightning rods)will provide 100% protection.) I agree that a surge
suppressor without a ground is next to useless, but most have such a
ground
these days.

By the way, lightning rods are not supposed to "draw the lightning" away
from the protected structure. Any wire you might use would be far too
flimsy
to carry such a load. What a lightning rod does is to slowly discharge the
atmosphere surrounding it (that is why it should have a sharp point) and
to
lessen the probability of a strike in the area (look in any physics book).

An earlier poster mentioned a ground fault interrputer circuit (GFI).
This
is intended to save your life from electrocution if you should happen to
touch a live power line while your feet (or other part) is grounded. The
GFI
senses that there is current going from hot directly to ground (through
you)
without going back through the GFI and the unit shuts off the juice
before
any damage can be done. All bathroom and outdoor sockets should be
equipped with GFIs for safety. However, a GFI does nothing to protect
equipment
from surges, spikes, or lightning.

I have several friends whe have had their surge suppressor "blow up" (it
was doing its job) in response to a massive line surge, and the attached
equipment was not damaged. Other equipment in the house did not fare so
well. This is by no means "proof" of effectiveness, but I do not believe a
good surge suppressor is as useless as one correspondent seems to believe.

bern muller

Bern et al,

Lightning is a definitely a phenomenon. I had a friend with a computer with
two surge protectors, and a voltage regulator on his computer system and
when his home got zapped the electrical discharge traveled through the two
surge protectors destroying them, and then, evidently followed on the
outside of his voltage regulator and when it got to the end of the line
where his computer was it melted the case on his monitor and fried the
inside of the CPU case and blew up his printer.

I had an electrical surge take out one of the telephone jacks and kill my
modem. Now-a-days, if it is raining, and certainly if there is thunder, the
computer does not get turned on and if heard while being used, it is
immediately shut off. I also the unplug the main plug from the wall socket.
I have a surge protector and a UPS, put I certainly don't take chances with
lightning. In addition, when I got a new phone jack I setup the line to my
computer where when I am finished with using my computer I disconnected the
telephone line to isolate the computer from telephone line.

Tom L.L.
===============================
"bmuller" wrote in message
s.com...

"Anne Lurie" wrote in message
.com...

Well, I happened to have the paperwork from one of our APC UPS units
right
here, and it says (in part): "Power line transients that APC products
have
been designed to protect against, as recognized by industry standards,
include spikes and surges on AC power lines."
This reply is not targeted at the last poster, but at what seems to be a
general bit of confusion in the group.

There are spikes and surges on power lines as a result of everyday
industrial usage in the general area. Surge suppressors work well for
these. Most commercial surge suppressors these days use a 3 prong plug
which should provide an adequate ground for this purpose. A lightning
strike miles away may also lead to a spike which is amenable to
a surge suppressor. But, a direct lightning strike in the close
neighborhood
can generate lots of power, and no surge suppressor will protect from
that
(lightning, in fact, acts so bizzarrely that I doubt anything (including
lightning rods)will provide 100% protection.) I agree that a surge
suppressor without a ground is next to useless, but most have such a
ground
these days.

By the way, lightning rods are not supposed to "draw the lightning" away
from the protected structure. Any wire you might use would be far too
flimsy
to carry such a load. What a lightning rod does is to slowly discharge the
atmosphere surrounding it (that is why it should have a sharp point) and
to
lessen the probability of a strike in the area (look in any physics book).

An earlier poster mentioned a ground fault interrputer circuit (GFI).
This
is intended to save your life from electrocution if you should happen to
touch a live power line while your feet (or other part) is grounded. The
GFI
senses that there is current going from hot directly to ground (through
you)
without going back through the GFI and the unit shuts off the juice
before
any damage can be done. All bathroom and outdoor sockets should be
equipped with GFIs for safety. However, a GFI does nothing to protect
equipment
from surges, spikes, or lightning.

I have several friends whe have had their surge suppressor "blow up" (it
was doing its job) in response to a massive line surge, and the attached
equipment was not damaged. Other equipment in the house did not fare so
well. This is by no means "proof" of effectiveness, but I do not believe a
good surge suppressor is as useless as one correspondent seems to believe.

bern muller

I wrote:

By the way, lightning rods are not supposed to "draw the lightning"
\ away from the protected structure. Any wire you might use would be
far too flimsy to carry such a load. What a lightning rod does is
to slowly discharge the atmosphere surrounding it


"w_tom" wrote in message

This is the scam promoted by the Early Streamer Emission
industry.

Actually, this is the scam first promoted by Benjamin Franklin. Turns out he
was wrong. So was I in my previous posting, so I may well be the first
newsgroup poster in history to admit to error. Being somewhat elderly, I
tried to recall what we learned about lightning in physics class, and got it
mixed in with what we learned about Franklin in history class. It seems even
Ben realized later in his life that lightning rods do not discharge clouds,
but merely provide a safe path to ground for the lightning.

The US Army defines in TM5-690 a wire size sufficient to
discharge lightning without damage. 10 AWG. This makes
complete sense once one learns a direct lightning strike has
so little energy.

Hmmmm. It seems to me knocking bricks off of buildings, or splitting trees,
or making very loud noises and bright lights suggests more than "so little
energy". Various non commercial websites suggest that a typical lightning
strike releases 250 KWH of energy. A big one may release 10 times that much.
That is a lot of energy. Admittedly, most of that is dissipated in the air
above where it strikes, but I think it is disingenuous to characterize it as
"little". It is not a lot, for example, compared to what it takes to light
New York city. On the other hand, that amount of energy is concentrated in
less than a millisecond, so it is very intense.

notes, and are based upon decades of experience. If lightning
vaporizes wires, then Ben Franklin did not exist to sign the
Declaration of Independence.

Ben's kite did not actually get struck by lightning, but just picked up the
cloud charge. His kite string was not a copper conductor and did not conduct
a large current.

A lightning rod above the pond and properly earthed by 10
AWG or heavier wire is more than sufficient to intercept and
divert lightning to earth without pond damage.

Most lightning rod manufacturers use 2 or 0 gauge wire as the down wire. 10
gauge seems to me a little flimsy. Given that a 10 gauge copper wire has a
resistance of about 1 ohm per 1000 feet, and given a total length of wire
of about 50 feet, we are dealing with 0.05 ohms of resistance. Given also
that an average lightning strike can have a current of 10,000 amps (NASA has
measured at least one strike of 100,000 amps)(and that the conductor takes
the entire current) we are dealing with a dissipated power of 10000^2*.05
or 5 million watts. Or 100,000 watts per foot of wire. Admittedly this is
for a very short time. But I submit that 100000 watts applied to a foot of
this wire over a millisecond will melt or otherwise seriously damage that
wire.