 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 98 / Internet / September 2007How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?
So Verizon DSL is getting cheap and it's clear IMO that my current ISP (erols/rcn/starpower in Baltimore) is never going to have highspeed. Verizon sent me the kit and started billing me yesterday**, but not until I was on the last page of the Quick Start instructions and 2/3rds of the way through the CD did I learn that I can't, they say, use the USB port, that I have to have an ethernet card. I think I have one in the other room but haven't found it yet and I don't think it has a software CD to go with it. Since ethernet wasn't common iirc in 1998/9, do I need to find software somewhere else. (The ethernet card I found on ebay had a cd to go with it.) I know I could buy a whole card with cd for not much money, but I want to use the card I have. Otherwise, what was the point of saving it. :) Also curious why I can't just use the USB port for DSL. The instructions in the DSL kit said I would need drivers, but the included CD won't go down the USB path because it determined I have win98. I know an ethernet card is just a few bucks, but it's my curiosity and I wonder if I can get the USB drivers for Verizon DSL off the web or straight off the kit CD, and if so, what would the file names be, or what extension do driver files end in. (I may have known this stuff once, but it's fading away. :( ) And if not, why will USB work for my memory stick and and an early digital camera (that I just got NIB) but not for DSL, in win98 but will work in later OSes. If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) >The instructions in the DSL kit said I would need drivers, but the >included CD won't go down the USB path because it determined I have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >names be, or what extension do driver files end in. (I may have known >this stuff once, but it's fading away. :( ) To add to one part of my question, I found the model number of the DSL modem and on the included CD there was a file for that model, which included 5 .sys files, one .cat file, one .dll file, and one .inf file. I can give more details if they would help. IIUC, it's possible to "execute" an .inf file, and that would install whatever drivers are appropriate. I could copy in the whole thing if soemone wants but it does have language for win98. Should I do it. Can I cause myself any harm? And why do they say that win98 requires ethernet? If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) >> The instructions in the DSL kit said I would need drivers, but the >> included CD won't go down the USB path because it determined I have [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If you are inclined to email me > for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) mm: Open the .INF file using notepad (it is a pure ASCII text file) and look for references to Windows 98. The CD I got from Verizion (Westell 6100 Modem/Router) had Win98 drivers for USB on it though I never used it. If you have the make and model of the NIC you should be able to find drivers for it as well. HTH & GL John  Signature\\\||/// ------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o---------------- ----------------------------()-------------------------- '' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. '' John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6 >And why do they say that win98 requires ethernet? Replying to myself, I didn't real all of this They say a NIC is required for win98SE and strongly recommended for all others. If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) | So Verizon DSL is getting cheap and it's clear IMO that my current ISP | (erols/rcn/starpower in Baltimore) is never going to have highspeed. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] | If you are inclined to email me | for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) Perhaps you can, however, without you supplying the group with what card you intend to use, we have no way to advise you of whether it might, or a driver... As for USB issues/drivers, you can download a universal driver, which will negate [for the most part] the need to install other specific drivers. Its called Maximus Decim Universal Driver, nusb31.exe [Win98SE only, and USB 2.0 only]. However, USB 2.0 will use more processing power/time slices than using a network card. USB also inflicts its own bottleneck to devices attached to it. SignatureMEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com ________ > Verizon sent me the kit and started billing me yesterday**, but not > until I was on the last page of the Quick Start instructions and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wasn't common iirc in 1998/9, do I need to find software somewhere > else. (The ethernet card I found on ebay had a cd to go with it.) When I hooked up with Verizon DSL a few years ago the modem they included would theoretically function either with USB or NIC (ethernet card). My preferance was USB as I had no NIC. I don't recall if the USB worked and was lousy/unreliable or if it never worked at all but I spent $10 for a NIC. It works. SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico >> Verizon sent me the kit and started billing me yesterday**, but not >> until I was on the last page of the Quick Start instructions and >> 2/3rds of the way through the CD did I learn that I can't, they say, >> use the USB port, that I have to have an ethernet card. >When I hooked up with Verizon DSL a few years ago the modem they >included would theoretically function either with USB or NIC (ethernet >card). My preferance was USB as I had no NIC. > >I don't recall if the USB worked and was lousy/unreliable or if it >never worked at all but I spent $10 for a NIC. It works. When I read the instructions more closely, it says that a NIC is required for win98SE and strongly recommended for all others. There are so many problems with their Quick Start instructions, it's amazing. On page 2 under "CD Contents" it says "This CD does not contain any software for your computer". At the bottom of page 5, it says "Note: If you want to connect your computer [using USB], you must use the enclosed CD to install software drivers" After CD Contents, there are three steps listed: Step 1: Install filters page 2 Step 2: Install modem page 4 Step 3: Account setup page 6 Finally at the very end, the bottom of page 7, it says, at the very end of the FAQ: I plan to connect via USB. Should I connect the hardware first? No, it says, insert the CD first. The CD contains drivers that are needed for the USB option to work properly. Connecting the hardware first may cause your computer to use a USB driver that does not commicate correctly with the modem or router. Why didn't it say that before someone installs the filters, modems and connects in order to do account setup? And it doesn't say how to undo the driver problem that the bad instructions helped create. Oh, yeah, and then the Spanish starts, also for 7 pages, but then there is more English hidden after that on page 15, where it says you can't use USB after all if you have win98. It never said that before. And that ethernet is strongly recommended for all others. Even though they didn't warn me when I signed up several days ago that I needed an ethernet card. I could have had one by now. And nowhere does it say whether to run the phone line to the DSL modem through the surge suppressor first. When I called (for other reasons) she didn't know anything about a surge suppressor. So I said, What if the lightning ruins the modem? She said that the hardware was guaranteed, and then added "for one year". And yet the front cover says "Just 3 steps....That's all there is to it." If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) > Oh, yeah, and then the Spanish starts, also for 7 pages, but then > there is more English hidden after that on page 15, where it says [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Even though they didn't warn me when I signed up several days ago > that I needed an ethernet card. I could have had one by now. Just out of curiosity, is there a jack on the modem that says USB? SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico >> Oh, yeah, and then the Spanish starts, also for 7 pages, but then >> there is more English hidden after that on page 15, where it says [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Just out of curiosity, is there a jack on the modem that says USB? Yeah, there is. And it comes with a USB cord in the modem box too. If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) >>> Oh, yeah, and then the Spanish starts, also for 7 pages, but then >>> there is more English hidden after that on page 15, where it says [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yeah, there is. And it comes with a USB cord in the modem box too. Then my supposition is that there are also USB drivers on the CD (not hard to check) but they were having problems with Win98 users trying to use USB so they stuck in the "use NIC card" admonition to save themselves grief. I agree with them. SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > >Just out of curiosity, is there a jack on the modem that says USB? > > Yeah, there is. And it comes with a USB cord in the modem box too. USB for Windows 98 was rather kludgy and does not support USB 2.0. That DSL modem probably requires USB 2.0 since USB 1 is only limited to data transfers from things like floppy disks and keyboards. The phone line already has a 'whole house' protector installed for free. Earthing defines the protection. A protector adjacent to the DSL modem may simply earth surges through the electronics (has no dedicated earthing wire) and could adversely impact DSL signals. If you are worried about surges, then you need the tens of times cheaper solution that even the telco uses in their own facilities - a 'whole house' protector at the AC electric box. For Windows 98, the Ethernet card (NIC) is the only viable solution. Reasons why would be obvious to those with sufficient technical knowledge to understand Windows 98, USB, and how DSL works. Simply plug the NIC into computer and start computer. NIC installation should be obvious and simple. Then learn what the lights are reporting on DSL modem to better learn what you have AND to have information sufficient for quick failure resolutions. > The phone line already has a 'whole house' protector installed for > free. Earthing defines the protection. A protector adjacent to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > solution that even the telco uses in their own facilities - a 'whole > house' protector at the AC electric box. w_ can't figure out how plug-in suppressors work. For accurate information on surges and surge suppression read a guide from the IEEE at: http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf Or a simpler guide from the NIST at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf mm is correct that both power and signal wires for protected equipment need to run through the plug-in suppressor. And all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same suppressor. -- bud-- >> The phone line already has a 'whole house' protector installed for >> free. Are you sure? Then all these phone line surge suppressors are just a waste of money? >Earthing defines the protection. But my house is no better than most, and afaik everyone is urged to run the phone line, to a modem at least, through a surge suppressor (not just the AC). I think I lost a modem once before I started doing this for the modem. But now both the UPS and the AC power distribution box that sits underneath the monitor have a telephone line surge suppressors built in and I'm using one of them. >> A protector adjacent to the >> DSL modem may simply earth surges through the electronics (has no >> dedicated earthing wire) and could adversely impact DSL signals. If That would be bad. But what do cautious people do? It would be worth some speed loss, depending on how much, to protect the dsl modem, especailly after that year's guarantee has run out. But even if guaranteed, who wants to wait until they send me another one? I'll have to keep my dial-up modem nearby for when the dsl modem is fried. >> you are worried about surges, then you need the tens of times cheaper >> solution that even the telco uses in their own facilities - a 'whole >> house' protector at the AC electric box. AC electric box? For the AC? I've read about that on alt.home.repair and they are not so cheap. But my DSL modem is going to plug into the UPS which has AC surge suppression. >w_ can't figure out how plug-in suppressors work. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >need to run through the plug-in suppressor. And all interconnected >equipment needs to be connected to the same suppressor. So that's another flaw in the instructions that come in the Verizon DSL manual and CD, because nothing is mentioned about surge suppressoin. And the customer service woman sounded like she had never heard of it. The modem is extermal to the PC. Does that keep the surge from going past the modem, or past the NIC card, into the computer mobo? If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) >>> The phone line already has a 'whole house' protector installed for >>> free. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > underneath the monitor have a telephone line surge suppressors built > in and I'm using one of them. You have posted a popular urban myth. Who urges running a wire through a protector? Myth purveyors or science? Science well proven in the 1930s will be discussed. Appreciate how a modem is more often damaged. Surge enters on wires highest on utility poles. That is AC electric. A surge must first form an electrical current through everything in that path to earth ground. Electricity does not flow like an ocean wave. Current flows through everything simultaneously. The path: incoming on AC electric. Into computer motherboard (made easier when a protector is adjacent to that computer). Out computer via modem. To earth ground on phone line. Why earth via the phone line? That phone line has an earthed 'whole house' protector. Protector connects phone line to earth ground during a surge. Surge has found a path to earth. Later something in that electrical path is destroyed. Weakest point in that path is often on telephone line side of a modem. To have damage, the surge (electricity) must first have both an incoming and outgoing path through electronics. An incoming path and no outgoing path means no current and no surge damage. Many assume surges enter like waves on a beach. Many assume a surge must have entered on phone line because modem damage was on phone line side. IOW they ignore what was even taught in primary school science. If a current exists, the current is flowing simultaneously - both on the incoming side and outgoing side of that modem. Which side suffers damage? Which side has a weakest component in that connection? Will a protector stop what three miles of sky could not? That is what they claim when a wire connects *through* a protector. Reality. Nothing but a direct connection is between that incoming and outgoing wire. Test it with a meter. It is a direct connection from the incoming and outgoing wire jacks. Where is the protection? That protector does not sit between your DSL modem and phone line absorbing or stopping surges. That protector component connects like it was another telephone on the phone line. That protector is effective if the other side connects short to earth ground. Worse, they can charge excessively because so many *believe* myths rather than learn the science. Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $100. With profit margins that excessive, then more important is to have Bud promoting those myths. They cannot afford to have you learn about earthing. Bud will not discuss the manufacturer's spec sheets. Why? No claim of effective protection from each type of surge. Why do they forget to provide protection numbers? A plug-in protector is being promoted on myths and half truths - with massive profits. Massive profits and no numerical protection specs. That is effective protection? Where does that telephone line protector discuss earth ground? It does not. Where does that telephone line plug-in protector have a dedicated earthing wire? Another indicator of ineffective protection. No earthing wire? No discussion of earthing? Both identify ineffective protectors. Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors inside facilities that can never suffer damage? Plug-in protectors have a history of contributing to electronics damage. Telco needs protection that works AND that costs tens of times (maybe 100 times) less money. Telco uses the same type protector that is also installed inside your NID - for free. But that same protector will be even better inside the telco switching computer building - the CO. Why? Telco installs a massively superior earth ground in that building. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. To make that protector even better, telco increases distance between protector and electronics. Separation may be as much as 50 meters. Separation between protector and electronics means even better protection. Where is a plug-in protector? Only one or two meters away? Just another reason why plug-in protectors are ineffective. That earth ground must meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. Does your earthing even meet 1990 code? Responsible manufacturers such as Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, Square D and GE make a 'whole house' protector for AC electric that has a dedicated earthing wire. Protector that costs about $1 per protected appliance. How much for a plug-in protector that does not even claim (in numeric specs) to protect from the typically destructive type of surge? Oh. It protects from one type of surge. Therefore it protects from all types of surges? No earth ground wire on that plug-in protector (or UPS) does what? Where does it divert the surge energy? Where is the surge dissipated? Where is the 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection? A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Myth purveyors will avoid all discussion about earthing to promote ineffective plug-in protectors. View manufacturer specs for your UPS. Where does it list protection for each type of surge? Why no claim? Notice the missing earthing wire. > > But my house is no better than most, and afaik everyone is urged to > > run the phone line, to a modem at least, through a surge suppressor [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > underneath the monitor have a telephone line surge suppressors built > > in and I'm using one of them. > You have posted a popular urban myth. Who urges running a wire > through a protector? Myth purveyors or science? Who are the myth purveyors? The IEEE. The NIST. Everyone but w_. . > The path: incoming on AC electric. Into computer motherboard (made > easier when a protector is adjacent to that computer). Out computer > via modem. To earth ground on phone line. A surge can enter on either power or signal wires. The IEEE guide has an illustration of a surge entering on the cable service. The illustration shows how plug-in suppressors work - clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. (An electric service panel suppressor would have provided *no* protection in this case.) (IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.) All interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through the suppressor (as mm said). Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. Multiport suppressors are described in both guides. > Bud will not discuss the > manufacturer's spec sheets. Why? No claim of effective protection > from each type of surge. "Each type of surge" is bullcrap from w__. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs (protection elements) connected from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all surge types. w_'s preferred service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does not provide specs for "each type of surge. With no valid technical arguments, w_ invents issues. > No earthing wire? No discussion of earthing? Both > identify ineffective protectors. w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40). > ... 'whole house' protector > for AC electric .... Protector that > costs about $1 per protected appliance. If you count light bulbs as appliances. > A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone agrees earthing is a good idea. But the only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. Never explained by w_: - 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"? -- bud-- > The modem is extermal to the PC. Does that keep the surge from going > past the modem, or past the NIC card, into the computer mobo? Do you really believe a protector will stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not stop? Effective protectors don't stop or absorb anything. Effective protectors shunt / divert / connect / clamp / bond that surge to earth. An earthed surge has no reason to find earth ground, destructively, via household appliances. Only myths claim to block or absorb surges. Effective protection even in the 1930s shunted / diverted surges to earth ground ... which is why the protector is only as effective as its earthing connection. Only myth purveyors claim to stop surges; completely ignore earthing. Profits are too high to be honest. >> The modem is extermal to the PC. Does that keep the surge from going >> past the modem, or past the NIC card, into the computer mobo? > > Do you really believe a protector will stop or absorb what three >miles of sky could not stop? Well of course none of the surge suppressors can stop the actual lightning bolt, which can take a convoluted path, even on occasion going through people who are in a house. Surge suppressors are meant to suppress voltage spikes that are induced in conductors that are near the lightning. These spikes occur in a wide range of voltages, and suppressors can stop or bypass many of them. One way to protect equipment connected to a phone line would be with one of the semiconductors (I forget the name) that have high resistance with normal voltages (whatever is normal for device as normally used), and much lower resistance when voltage gets much higher. This could be used to short the tip and ring of a phone line, sending any spike back to the phone company, where they have either better surge grounding, higher quality components, or where they will replace any parts that get ruined. The details of how many lightning strikes create surges and spikes in the ranges that can be stopped by suppressors of various cost and quality is far beyond my ability to learn, or to remember, if I had learned them. And whether I should use a surpressor on this DSL line, I don't know for certain. But I don't believe that spikes are a myth, or that they can't be surprressed. > Effective protectors don't stop or >absorb anything. Effective protectors shunt / divert / connect / [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Only myth purveyors claim to stop surges; completely ignore >earthing. Profits are too high to be honest. If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-) A destructive surge seeks earth ground. If your semiconductor protector shorts tip to ring, then no current flows through that protector. Numbers will be provided to demonstrate that reality. Worse, that fact would have been completely obvious with grasp of some basic electrical concepts. Real world protectors don't connect tip to ring. But protectors promoted by junk science to the naive make that tip/ring connection. The word scam applies... Voltage (before a surge) between earth and ring is maybe 50 volts. Voltage between tip and ring is maybe 50 volts. Let's say a surge arrives. Voltage between tip and ring remains at 50 volts. But voltage between earth and ring is now 2050 volts. Voltage tip to earth is now 2000 volts. What has your tip to ring protector done? Nothing. Your protector saw no spike voltage while a 2000 volt surge continued destructively into a DSL modem. Your protector conducted no current; provided no protection. A typically destructive 2000 volts spike was completely ignored by your tip to ring protector. That tip to ring protector is classic of protectors promoted by urban myths in retail stores. Do surges get conducted back to the CO: "sending any spike back to the phone company, where they have either better surge grounding, higher quality components"? Do you just make this stuff up? That is absurd; but typical of science promoted by retail store salesman. Please learn basic electrical concepts. Please learn about wire impedance. Please learn why previous posts defined a 'less than 10 foot' earthing wire. If an earthing wire must be so short, then how will "sending any spike back to the phone company, where they have either better surge grounding" accomplish anything? The spike will not travel 10,000 feet back to the CO. Did you grasp why an earthing wire must be 'less than 10 feet', why no sharp bends, why not inside metallic conduit, etc? These reasons should be obvious with electrical knowledge. How can you know what a protector does when you don't even comprehend basic electrical concepts. Please learn how telephone surge protectors are constructed. Effective telco protector makes a connection to earth; not tip to ring. Effective protectors were even standard even in the 1950s: http://www.inwap.com/inwap/chez/Phoneline.jpg Even that 1950s protector is not wired as mm described - tip to ring. 60 years later and mm still does not know why that telco 'installed for free' protector is so effective - and not wired tip to ring. Please learn why earthing is so critical before claiming a surge will be conducted back to the CO - one of the most absurd ideas posted. Your tip to ring protector completely ignored a 1200 volts surge. Effective protectors, instead, connect each wire to earth ground as even shown in that 1950 protector picture. Why do we install surge protectors? So that direct lightning strikes do not cause damage. Protectors installed to earth direct lightning strikes make trivial induced surges irrelevant. . But when promoting ineffective plug-in protectors, better is to deny direct lightning protection exists. A protector that is destroyed by a surge is not just undersized and grossly overpriced (extremely profitable). Undersized protectors will also have the naive recommending those scam protectors. Then when damage occurs, the naive will proclaim nothing can protect from direct strikes. Using your logic, then your telco (that suffers maybe 100 surges during each thunderstorm) must also halt telephone service for four days annually to replace their surge damaged switching computer. Why does your telco never shutdown for thunderstorms? Because surge protection is installed for direct lightning strikes; not for induced surges from nearby strikes. Look at how obvious that induce surge protection is. If protectors were only for induced surges, then your entire town suffers many days every year without phone service. Please stop letting those scam artists push so many urban myths. What completely earths an induced surge on a 100+ foot long antenna? One NE-2 glow light. An induced surge is so *massive* that an NE-2 glow lamp conducting milliamps earths an induced surge from nearby lightning. Once we apply numbers (milliamps), then that massive induced surge becomes something trivial or completely irrelevant. Demonstrated is why junk science promotes protectors without numbers. We install protectors to earth direct lightning strikes. Protector must remain functional after that strike. Nothing new here. It was standard technology even in the 1930s. Effective protectors earth a direct strike AND remain functional. The effective protector earths surges so that a human never even knows the surge exists. What happens when an effective protector earths surges? The naive does not see damage; therefore does not recommend the protector. So many know only from what they see rather than learn how electricity works. The naive therefore would never know which protector is effective. The naive recommend grossly undersized and overpriced protectors only because the ineffective protector fails - smokes. They rationalize that it must work because it was destroyed. Classic junk science reasoning. "Surge suppressors are meant to" connect surges to earth ground so that direct lightning strikes cause no damage. Earthing is how Ben Franklin eliminated lightning damage to church steeples in 1752. Earthing is why commercial broadcasting stations suffer direct lightning strikes routinely without damage. There is no way to be nice about contemptuous junk science myths that ignore earthing. Instead we learn from those who learned the science and then did the work for generations: http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html > Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning > 30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a > low ohm DC path. What is that telephone line? A long wire antenna connected to a DSL modem. Same techniques that eliminate damage in commercial broadcasting stations also mean no damage to a DSL modem. What do the educated do? Do they learn of "surges and spikes in the ranges that can be stopped by suppressors of various cost and quality [that] is far beyond my ability to learn, or to remember". Funny. Why do you confuse scam products with simple 'whole house' protectors that have that dedicated earthing wire? There is no wide range of products. There is a $10 protector sold in the grocery store. An equivalent protector with fancy paint sells for $150 in Circuit City. Many fashions clothing the same protector. If you are confused, then you have spent too much time listening to urban myths promoted by retail store salesman or are entranced by the latest fashion in surge protectors. Basic 'whole house' protectors - more than sufficient - are from GE, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, Leviton, Square D, Intermatic and other well known responsible manufacturers. The effective protector has an earthing wire for that 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection - and no fashion sense. You don't need a protector on your DSL line. Instead, confirm the telco installed protector is properly earthed. You provided the earthing. If your earthing is not sufficient, then a superior 'telco supplied' protector will not be effective. But again, why do you keep ignoring this fundamental fact. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Why do we repeatedly reference facts such as 'less than 10 feet'? Because earthing defines protection. Why did you even fall for the junk science promoting a 'tip to ring' protector? Again, because you keep ignoring what provides protection: earth ground. Earth ground. Earth ground. Stop ignoring the expression. Earth ground, Earth ground. There is no 'magic box' solution. The magic box is not protection. Earth ground. Earth ground. Earth ground is the protection. Please learn the simple concept. Stop assuming 'magic boxes' provide protection. Stop describing protectors that stop surges. What wire typically carries 'DSL modem' destructive surges into the building? AC electric. Which wires typically do not have that necessary earthing? AC electric. Which utility needs you to earth a 'whole house' protector (protection just like your telco does in their COs)? AC electric. Provided again is where your solutions lie. Proper earthing of the telco installed protector. Proper earthing of an AC electric 'whole house' protector. No magic box solutions exist for the DSL modem wire. Any protector without that earthing wire violates what an effective protector must accomplish. So what is that? Maybe 26 different reasons how an effective protector works, why it works, why earthing defined protection, why surges are not "stopped by suppressors of various cost and quality" , and why a DSL protector is wasted money. How many reasons do you need? Which one of us was doing this stuff generations ago? Last paragraph again defines what is required to protect a DSL modem. >> Do you really believe a protector will stop or absorb what three >> miles of sky could not stop? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > But I don't believe that spikes are a myth, or that they can't be > surprressed. > A protector that is destroyed > by a surge is not just undersized and grossly overpriced (extremely > profitable). As long as the overpriced price isn't more than the $30-40 range I still like them. Why? Insurance...they pay off/replace if connected stuff is damaged. Belkin has paid me more than $1000 over the last few years. Yeah, I know...better to have *real* protection rather than pseudo-protection + insurance. Thing is, electricity fries my brain even more than it used to fry my DUN modems :) SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > As long as the overpriced price isn't more than the $30-40 range I > still like them. Why? Insurance...they pay off/replace if connected > stuff is damaged. Belkin has paid me more than $1000 over the last > few years. Overpriced is $25 for a power strip protector. But some will sell that same type of protector for $100. Many consumers assume expensive must be better. But the equivalent circuit is also sold for $10 in the grocery store. Read fine print associated with most warranties. For example, one states that if protectors from any other manufacturer are used, then that claim is rejected. A protector warranty contains numerous fine print exemptions. They do not intend to pay for damage. Steve Uhrig on 17 Jun 2003 in the newsgroup comp.home.automation entitled "UPS for computer and TV" > I lost the modem board in an early generation commercial high volume > fax which was 'protected' by an APC UPS. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > service, sent both return receipt to prove they received them, and never > got the courtesy of a reply. Ironically, a larger warranty means a less effective protector. Polyphaser, an industry benchmark, has no warranty Protectors without earthing will claim the highest warranty and leave a long list of Steve Uhrig experiences. Purchase insurance from a broker who is required by law to honor those claims. Better is to spend about $1 per appliance for protection that actually will earth surges. $1 per appliance verses $35? The less expensive solution is also the solution routinely used where damage is not acceptable. The $35 solution is not used because it can even contribute to damage of adjacent electronics. >> As long as the overpriced price isn't more than the $30-40 range I >> still like them. Why? Insurance...they pay off/replace if >> connected stuff is damaged. Belkin has paid me more than $1000 >> over the last >> few years. > Read fine print associated with most warranties. For example, one > states that if protectors from any other manufacturer are used, then > that claim is rejected. A protector warranty contains numerous fine > print exemptions. They do not intend to pay for damage. But they do. Some (Belkin, eg) more readily than others. ________________ > Purchase insurance from a broker who is required by law to honor > those claims. Insurance is an ongoing, annual expense. A surge protector is a one time expense. SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico "Real world protectors don't connect tip to ring." They do and it's called transverse mode or line to line. "Voltage (before asurge) between earth and ring is maybe 50 volts. Voltage between tip and ring is maybe 50 volts. Let's say asurge arrives. Voltage between tip and ring remains at 50 volts. But voltage between earth and ring is now 2050 volts. Voltage tip to earth is now 2000 volts." Odds of this happening are close to 0% with working primary protection that protects T-G and R-G. Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground" letting in 400-1000v, close to 100%. "What has your tip to ring protector done? Nothing. Your protector saw no spike voltage while a 2000 voltsurgecontinued destructively into a DSL modem." That's why it is important for a point of use or secondary protector to be equipped with a polyswitch resettable fusing PTC on both the tip and ring to disconnect the line with more that 150ma current flow, no current flow -- no damage to the DSL modem. "That tip to ring protector is classic of protectors promoted by urban myths in retail stores." Lot less urban myths in retail stores than on the Internet. "Telephone primary protector breakdown voltages are very high; adequate, perhaps to prevent severe shocks to users, and possibly adequate to protect older, electromechanical phone systems with no ground or AC connections. But the combination of high protector surge limiting voltage, and possible large voltage rise in the protector ground connection, means that the net surge voltage seen by the equipment may be too high to be safe for modems and fax machines with delicate electronic circuits." IEEE Guide for Surge Protection of Equipment page 29 http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf Claiming that a Polyswitch device will provide protection implies no electrical knowledge; that "knowledge" by quoting a guide is without understanding what that guide actually says. Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch is protection? The numbers. 1) What is voltage for that Polyswitch? 60 volts. Surges are current sources. That means voltage will rise as necessary to maintain that current flow. Current will blow right through that 60 volt Polyswitch. Blow through easily. Please first learn from Raychem (now Tyco) datasheets before making assumptions. 2) Telephone equipment must withstand well over 600 volts (transverse and longitudinal) without damage as was even obvious in 1950s Bell System Technical Journal papers. What good does a 60 volt Polyswitch do when existing circuits already inside telephone appliances make 600 volts non-destructive? 3) The Polyswitch takes how many milliseconds or seconds to respond? Surges are done in microseconds. Polyswitch would need how many thousand consecutive surges before it might respond? Same reason is also why fuses and circuit breakers provide no surge protection. 4) Even 1950s protectors did not attempt to do what fl_fly_boy claims a Polyswitch does. Even in the 50s, a 3 mil gap protector was used - protection from each wire to earth. Even 1950s protection never attempted to block a surge as you speculated a Polyswitch would do. Is that enough reasons? If fl_fly_boy knew any one reason, then he would have never made that Polyswitch claim. That Polyswitch idea can only be recommended without basic electrical knowledge. fl_fly_boy will demonstrate how so many make claims without first learning basic facts. Responsible telephone protectors don't connect 'tip to ring'. Effective telephone protectors connect 'wire to earth' (tip to earth ground and ring to earth ground). And then we include numbers: something missing in posted anchored in junk science.. Those protectors limit voltages to 300 volts. That is well below what telephone equipment must withstand without damage; a standard that has existed for more than 50 years. Moving on; telephone appliances already contain internal protection. Why would a function inside a 'miracle box' do what already exists? The 'magic box' does nothing useful. Instead, we earth a protector so that protection already inside POTS equipment is not overwhelmed. That 'tip to ring' protector will not accomplish that task. But an earthed protector (installed free by the telco) does. It has a connection to shunt / divert a surge to earth. What does the effective protector do? Shunt or divert to earth. Then protection inside telephone appliances is not overwhelmed. No wonder telcos use same protector systems in their own facilities where failure is not an option. Claims that effective protectors are 'tip to ring' were demonstrated false even by a 1950 vintage protector AND by that protector inside your NID. The protector installed free by the telco is 'wire to earth'. Is that enough reasons demonstrating fl_fly_boy in error. No. If he knew any one reason, then he would not post what he did. So how much did he not know when he posted? Even NEC code requirements defines 'wire to earth' protection for phone line: Article 800.31 - > The primary protector shall consist of an arrester connected > between each line conductor and ground .... What does a 'wire to earth' protector provide? It also does 'tip to ring' protection. But another reason why responsible telephone protector manufacture does not use a 'tip to ring' only protector. OK. The Polyswitch recommendation is obviously bogus. 'Wire to earth' protectors do both transverse and longitudinal protection. Above are maybe ten different reasons. If fl_fly_boy knew any one, then he would not have posted as he did. This is no longer about an incorrect recommendation. This is about the so many who somehow know things but could never bother to first learn basic science. One of us learned from both theory and from decades of experience why earth ground provides protection. Moving on to reason eleven. Numbers from people who did the work and published it. Some Bell System papers measured surge voltages in SC, MI, MD, CT, and NJ - both longitudinal and transverse. Nothing exceeded 600 volts when using the standard 'wire to earth' protectors. As expected, powerful surges were not transverse - 'tip to ring'. Destructive surges (as demonstrated by an example in the previous post) would not even be seen by a 'tip to ring' protector. Obviously, surges on those long cables would not be transverse as fl- fly predicted. But fl_fly_boy is typical of those who assume any protector is protection; never learned why earthing is so critical. No, I am not done. In the 1970s, a Bell System study provided numbers for surges. Medium surge voltage was 381 volts. None exceeded 2000 volts. Did I select 2000 volts arbitrarily in that previous example? Maybe I learned the science before posting. Typical 2000 volt surge never applied 2000 volts 'tip to ring'. The 'tip to ring' protector would never see the same 2000 volt surge confronting a DSL modem. Even a Polyswitch would do nothing - obviously if one first learned electronics before posting. Those Bell System papers completely contradict this fl_fly_boy sentence that is traceable only to wild speculation: > 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. Most embarrassing is fl_fly_boy's claim that a 150 ma Polyswitch would *stop* a surge. He could only make that claim by having zero grasp of what how a Polyswitch works. fl_fly_boy could only make that claim by assuming a surge, not stopped by three miles of sky, can be stopped by a 1 centimeter Polyswitch. fl_fly demonstrates why so many others never learn what really provides protection - earth ground. fl_fly apparently believes retail store salesmen also do not promote urban myths. Then why do they sell products from Monster Cable? What protects that DSL modem? First the 'whole house' protector installed by the telco (for free) must be properly earthed. Second. the most common path of modem destructive surges - AC electric - also must have all three incoming wires properly earthed; two wire earthed via a 'whole house' protector from a responsible protector manufacturer. Just like the telephone protector; AC electric protection means the protector makes a 'wire to earth' connection from each AC power line. The protector being only as effective as its earth ground. So what was that? Maybe 14 different reasons why fl_fly_boy has posted in error. If he knew even one reason, then he would not have posted so. On Sep 12, 3:33 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Real world protectors don't connect tip to ring. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Lot less urban myths in retail stores than on the Internet. > Claiming that a Polyswitch device will provideprotectionimplies no > electrical knowledge; that "knowledge" by quoting a guide is without [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Why don't you learn to read and think "to be equipped with" is in no way saying it is the only component in the protector? Mm was obviously talking about a different component than a ptc so that is at least two components. Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v. How fast is that ac surge into that dsl modem coming out the pots line? Do you think lighting creates all surges? What 'miracle box' components in existing circuits already inside telephone appliances make 600 volts non-destructive? Why does the dsl modem take damage with the in existing circuits already inside telephone appliances? "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 ?s), since they may have to intercept direct lightning strikes carried in on aerial phone lines." http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf IEEE Guide for Surge Protection of Equipment 27 "harmlessly to ground" to be confused with w_tom's " 'wire to earth' (tip to earth ground and ring to earth ground)." The guide is saying the opposite of you. Who's should I believe ieee or w_tom? Most embarrassing is w_tom that can't read and think before lying. So how much did he not know when he posted? And I know better than ask you to backup anything you say with a reference, you don't do that. On Sep 13, 11:32 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch is protection? 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 internal protection. Telephone appliances must withstand more than 600 volt transients without damage as even demonstrated in Bell System Technical papers. Any protection that would be effective adjacent to a DSL modem is already inside that DSL modem. So that protection inside that DSL modem is not overwhelmed, we earth a typically destructive surge (lightning) before that surge can 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 install surge protection for lightning. Then other surges are also made irrelevant. Effective surge protection is 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. The surge is 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 provided protection. 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). Protection of his DSL modem and everything else inside the building should be defined by the quality of and connections to his earthing system (secondary protection) - http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf AND the primary protection system: http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html Both systems should be inspected. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - be it a surge protector or a Franklin lightning rod. > On Sep 13, 11:32 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - be it asurge > protector or a Franklin lightning rod. Why don't you learn to read and think "to be equipped with" is in no way saying it is the only component in the protector? Mm was obviously talking about a different component than a ptc so that is at least two components. Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v. How fast is that ac surge into that dsl modem coming out the pots line? Do you think lighting creates all surges? What 'miracle box' components in existing circuits already inside telephone appliances make 600 volts non-destructive? Why does the dsl modem take damage with the in existing circuits already inside telephone appliances? "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 ?s), since they may have to intercept direct lightning strikes carried in on aerial phone lines." http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf IEEE Guide for Surge Protection of Equipment 27 "harmlessly to ground" to be confused with w_tom's " 'wire to earth' (tip to earth ground and ring to earth ground)." The guide is saying the opposite of you. Who's should I believe ieee or w_tom? Most embarrassing is w_tom that can't read and think before lying. So how much did he not know when he posted? And I know better than ask you to backup anything you say with a reference, you don't do that. On Sep 14, 3:25 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: > Since you think a pots line needs no secondary protection from > voltage, and current is never an issue, and since you picked a 60v [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://www.circuitprotection.com/litbrochures/2ProDevicesAP1.pdf ptc's > and mov's fl_fly_boy: do you even bother to read your own citations? Your citation says that protection is only for metallic mode. You therefore assume the only destructive surge is metallic? You do if you don't have basic electrical knowledge. You do what propagandists hope you will do? You only believe what was first told; then you do everything to deny later and accurate facts. Propagandists hope more people think that way. fl_fly_boy - the retail saleman who recommended a secondary protectors was wrong. Spinning Which component in the app note is the protection? Not the Polyswitch as fl_fly_boy assumed. Read that post again. The Polyswitch acts only like a fuse. The Sibar (or other equivalents such as Sidactor) provides surge protection inside the phone AND for only one type of surge. fl_fly_bly - where is the protection? Already exists Inside the phone, modem, etc. as you were told repeatedly. View the figure labeled "Figure 2: Modem Interface". Protector is inside the modem. Protector is not a secondary (and expensive) device. Protection is already inside the phone as I posted and as fl_fly_boy repeatedly ignored. Telephone appliance contains internal protection. Why would a secondary protector do anything when a protector is already inside the telephone? But then fl_fly_boy has no experience with POTS hardware and no basic electrical knowledge. He did not know that protector already exists even after reading his own application note. fl_fly_boy has assumed the typically destructive transient is metallic. > Customer premise equipment is generally ungrounded and > therefore requiring only metallic protection architecture > against lightning and AC power faults Other type of surges that are typically destructive are not discussed because that protection is elsewhere.. Since the app note only discussed metallic, then fl_fly_boy assumes only metallic transients exist? Of course not. If he had basic knowledge, then fl_fly_boy would not make those assumptions. First, it should have been obvious to fl_fly_boy that the Polyswitch does not provide surge protection. Obviously the SiBar is the protector. Obviously the SiBar is only for one type of surge - metallic. Most embarrassing is that fl_fly_boy still thinks Polyswitch is for blocking surges. It is not. But explaining anything more will only result in more denials in long rambling posts and quotes that he does not understand. Second, protection already exists inside telco equipment. Why would spending big bucks for a secondary protector do anything when the protector is already inside the phone? It would not. If fl_fly_boy had learned this stuff or if he even read his app notes, then fl_fly_boy would not have posted spin. Third, what provides protection from another type of surge that typically does damage? The telco 'whole house' protector ... if properly earthed. Protector that makes all type of surges irrelevant so that protection inside POTS equipment is not overwhelmed. fl_fly_boy even demonstrated protection exists inside telephone appliances. Now if he would only admit it. fl_fly_boy still insists we must install on telephone cords what already exists inside the telephone, modem, et al. mm - for DSL modem protection - so that the protector circuits already inside that DSL modem are not overwhelmed - you must inspect and may need to upgrade your earthing system. The protector is only as effective as its earth ground. The telco provided protector is earthed so that protection already inside telephone and modem is not overwhelmed. > On Sep 14, 3:25 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > people think that way. fl_fly_boy - the retail saleman who > recommended a secondary protectors was wrong. Spinning but w_ your the only one thinking your way so i guess you've be told several times you are propagandists. but then i'll be told by you i'm just spining > Which component in the app note is theprotection? Not the > Polyswitch as fl_fly_boy assumed. Read that post again. The [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > earthed so thatprotectionalready inside telephone and modem is not > overwhelmed. Why don't you learn to read and think "to be equipped with" is in no way saying it is the only component in the protector? Mm was obviously talking about a different component than a ptc so that is at least two components. Only a person of your ignorance could propose 60v. How fast is that ac surge into that dsl modem coming out the pots line? Do you think lighting creates all surges? What 'miracle box' components in existing circuits already inside telephone appliances make 600 volts non-destructive? Why does the dsl modem take damage with the in existing circuits already inside telephone appliances? "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 ?s), since they may have to intercept direct lightning strikes carried in on aerial phone lines." http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf IEEE Guide for Surge Protection of Equipment 27 "harmlessly to ground" to be confused with w_tom's " 'wire to earth' (tip to earth ground and ring to earth ground)." The guide is saying the opposite of you. Who's should I believe ieee or w_tom? Most embarrassing is w_tom that can't read and think before lying. So how much did he not know when he posted? And I know better than ask you to backup anything you say with a reference, you don't do that. 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 ?s), 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. > fl_fly_boy has assumed the typically destructive transient is > metallic. w_tom quote "Real world protectors don't connect tip to ring." w_tom is not real intelligent i know you read my quote "Odds of this happening are close to 0% with working primary protection that protects T-G and R-G. Odds of the primary properly "Earth Ground" letting in 400-1000v, close to 100%. No you are lieing again, you have assumed. "fl_fly_boy: do you even bother to read your own citations?" yes i read them, understand them, and agree with them, you may read them, may understand them, you may agree with them, but then you lie to people about them. Please w_tom, *do not* read into, and then make claims that I've asserted something I haven't. you make statement, people challange your statements, you ignore the challange, you spin, you twist, you lie On Sep 15, 8:25 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: > Seew_tomlie 14 more times. He twist and lies so much he knows no > truth or reality. This is how fl_fly_boy proves facts? Insults? What do we now have - 17 times he posted in obvious error. The Polyswitch does not provide surge protection - does not even claim to provide surge protection. fl_fly_boy's own citation says the Sibar is for metallic mode. Protection from one type of surge will make other typically destructive types of surges irrelevant? Well, yes according to fl_fly_boy. To prove it, he posts insults. Meanwhile, protection from all types of surges is located where utility wires enterin the building and include that all so essential earthing wire. No earth ground means no effective protection. No earthing is how fl_fly_boy's miracle solution is supposed to work? The OP is encouraged to verify earthing for his telco 'provided for free' protector is installed, is shared by all other incoming utilities, and is short and direct. The OP is encouraged to inspect earthing for AC electric and to install one 'whole house' protector for that utility. These are solutions used in every factility where damage is not acceptable. The protector is only as effective as its earth ground. > No earth ground means no effective protection. The religious mantra repeated. The IEEE guide explains, for anyone who can read and think, that plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing. And w_ still has not found another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. Still never explained by w_: - 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"? Signaturebud-- > On Sep 15, 8:25 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > damage is not acceptable. The protector is only as effective as its > earth ground. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=w_tom+lie&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wg one more fact for you w_tom > On Sep 13, 11:32 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > 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=TR F600-150&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 ?s), 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." Patience...truth *always* prevails. Just don't confuse him with the facts. SignatureHTH, Curt Windows Support Center www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm On Sep 14, 3:04 am, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote: > On Sep 13, 11:32 am, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > 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=TR F600-150&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." > Did you really think a 150 ma Polyswitch is protection? I agree a polyswitch is not good for surge protection. > Responsible telephone protectors don't connect 'tip to ring'. > Effective telephone protectors connect 'wire to earth' (tip to earth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > telephone equipment must withstand without damage; a standard that has > existed for more than 50 years. I agree that protecting between just the phone wires is not likely to be effective. But w_ ignores fl__fly_boy’s quote from the IEEE guide: "Telephone primary protector breakdown voltages are very high; adequate, perhaps to prevent severe shocks to users, and possibly adequate to protect older, electromechanical phone systems with no ground or AC connections. But the combination of high protector surge limiting voltage, and possible large voltage rise in the protector ground connection, means that the net surge voltage seen by the equipment may be too high to be safe for modems and fax machines with delicate electronic circuits." The guide explains that the phone entry protector may limit voltage to ‘ground’ to 400V (which may be too high for some equipment). Then if the phone entry protector ‘ground’ connection to the common building ‘ground’ is 10 feet another 1,000V can be added - a total surge voltage between phone and power wires of 1400V. That is plenty to damage anything connected to both power and phone wires. A plug–in surge suppressor with the phone wires going through it will limit the voltage on all wires to a safe value for the connected equipment. The effect of even a 10 foot ‘ground’ wire illustrates why keeping a *short* interconnection of phone and cable protector ‘ground’ with the ‘ground’ at the power service is important. In many houses, the entry location of the phone, cable, ... prevents a short interconnection. Then, the IEEE guide says for equipment connected to both power and signal wires "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." Note the IEEE guide is at both http://omegaps.com/Lightning Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf and as posted by fl_fly_boy http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf > Moving on; telephone appliances already contain internal > protection. Why would a function inside a 'miracle box' do what > already exists? The 'magic box' does nothing useful. Both the IEEE and NIST disagree. > No, I am not done. In the 1970s, a Bell System study provided > numbers for surges. Medium surge voltage was 381 volts. None > exceeded 2000 volts. Did I select 2000 volts arbitrarily in that > previous example? Maybe I learned the science before posting. Typical > 2000 volt surge never applied 2000 volts 'tip to ring'. Of course 2000V getting through common mode on both phone wires would be a disaster. > What protects that DSL modem? First the 'whole house' protector > installed by the telco (for free) must be properly earthed. Second. > the most common path of modem destructive surges - AC electric - also > must have all three incoming wires properly earthed; two wire earthed > via a 'whole house' protector from a responsible protector > manufacturer. What does the NIST guide say? "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." > The protector being only as effective as its > earth ground. The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. w_ still has not found another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. Never explained by w_: - 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"? -- bud-- > But I don't believe that spikes are a myth, or that they can't be > surprressed. Meanwhile, I don't see where you grasped why USB on Windows SE cannot be used with DSL. Did you understand the numbers that permit using a camera but not usnig a DSL modem on your USB? Enough already, I've been an amateur radio operator for over 30 years, with various antennas as high as 60 feet up. I know about lightning first-hand, and have been a "victim" of a direct lightning hit to my house wiring. Surge suppression *is highly recommending* on all equipment. Voltage spikes far in excess of the nominal 120VAC line voltage *can and do* come through the house wiring when an electrical storm is present. A surge suppressor at the appliance can effectively prevent this spike from reaching the equipment (appliance). It will be of *no* use whatsoever in the event of a direct lightning strike to the electrical lines. Those same voltage spikes *can and do* come through the phone lines, and fry modems every day. The modem can be protected from these spikes with a suppressor built for phone lines. Additionally, the computer itself should be run through a surge suppressor too. All solid-state equipment (computers, VCR's, DVD players, televisions, etc.) are all much more sensitive and prone to damage from a voltage surge running the AC line than a non solid-state appliance. The only *absolute* protection against a direct lightning to your power pole, or a telephone junction box, is to *disconnect* any vulnerable equipment/appliances. SignatureHTH, Curt Windows Support Center www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm | > But I don't believe that spikes are a myth, or that they can't be | > surprressed. | | Meanwhile, I don't see where you grasped why USB on Windows SE | cannot be used with DSL. Did you understand the numbers that permit | using a camera but not usnig a DSL modem on your USB? On Sep 13, 11:05 am, "Curt Christianson" <curtchrist...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote: > Enough already, > > I've been an amateur radio operator for over 30 years, with various antennas > as high as 60 feet up. I know about lightning first-hand, and have been a > "victim" of a direct lightning hit to my house wiring. Curt's post is in direct contradiction to what amateur radio operators have been saying for a hundred years. Routine is to have direct lightning strikes with no damage. But those who recommend connecting 'through a surge protector', well Curt, did you bother to open one up? Makes no difference whether the computer is connected to a power strip OR connected to the other duplex wall receptacle. Either way, the electric circuit remains unchanged. If the "computer itself should be run through a surge suppressor", then why is Curt still suffering damage? Why does he recommend: > The only *absolute* protection ... is to *disconnect* any > vulnerable equipment/appliances. He recommends disconnecting because a connection through that protector provided no effective protection. Protector was too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. Since a telco's computer is connected to overhead wires all over town, then the telco also disconnects their computers - terminates phone service - during every thunderstorm? Curt Christianson makes that claim because telco switching computer must not be damaged. So they disconnect to protect hardware? Of course not. Curt is obviously wrong. Reality: view what learned ham radio operators do: http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/ Emergency response center operators remove their headsets and stop taking calls when thunderstorms arrive. Oh? 911 centers don't stop working? Surge threat is eliminated by not using plug-in protectors AND by upgrading earthing: http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm A ham who also runs a commercial broadcasting station - and suffers no damage. . He is not using protectors that are missing earthing: http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html A ham radio operator should know an industry benchmark - Polyphaser. Polyphaser's application notes discuss protection - discuss earthing extensively: http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx and http://tinyurl.com/2aymw9 Another radio station also demonstrated how to have no damage from direct lightning strikes: http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm Even direct lightning strikes to munitions storage structures result in no explosion due to Ufer grounding. No wonder Curt Christianson must disconnect. His solution is a protector that does not even claim to provide protection. Why do ham operators that do not disconnect, instead, suffer direct lightning strikes and no damage? Early 20th Century Ham radio operators would disconnect the antenna, put that lead inside a mason jar, and still suffer damage. But when the antenna wire was earthed, then damage stopped. Ham radio operators who also do this in commercial broadcasting stations cite earthing as essential to protection. Curt completely ignores even what ARRL recommends. Curt's protectors do not perform magic blocking functions as he has assumed. Therefore he suffers damage from direct lightning strikes. > The only *absolute* protection against a direct lightning to your > power pole, or a telephone junction box, is to *disconnect* ... Even early 20th Century ham radio operators learned that disconnecting is not so effective. Numerous citations by those who suffer direct strikes without damage completely contradict what Curt has posted. According to Curt, damage is unavoidable - because he uses ineffecitve plug-in protectors - no earthing. According to Curt, the telco must shutdown phone service during every thunderstorm - to disconnect and protect electronics such as modems. Numerous radio operators completely contradict what Curt Christianson has posted. Bill Otten KC9CS (first citation) is quite blunt about earthing. Enough already, Curt. The telco and 911 emergency operators disconnect and stop working when thunderstorms arrive? In the real world, instead, they install earthed protection and avoid the protectors that Curt has recommended. I completely believe in earthing (or grounding as we call) it. But you mis-understood my response. A surge suppressor is only good for those minor spikes that come through power lines and telco lines. For that they *do* work. For anything larger, they are of *no* use. Unfortunately, one cannot predict ahead of time what kind of surge they are to get. In a severe electrical storm for example, the only "safe" recourse from an equipment standpoint is to disconnect said equipment from the AC mains, and disconnect the equipment (answering machines, fax, etc.) from the telco's lines. In the case of ham's or anyone else with an outdoor antenna of any height, it should be grounded. The jar you refered to BTW is a Leyden jar--you're right on! SignatureHTH, Curt Windows Support Center www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm | On Sep 13, 11:05 am, "Curt Christianson" | <curtchrist...@NOSPAM.Yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] | world, instead, they install earthed protection and avoid the | protectors that Curt has recommended. Hi w_tom, I neglected to respond to a couple of other *very important* points. Yes there is protection available that permits ham's , broadcast stations, etc. to continue to operate in the face of the worst electrical storms. There most definitely *is* that protection available. The cost for the average consumer however can be cost prohibitive to get something that truly offers good protection. Another factor one *cannot* ignore is the ignorance, or in absense of ignorance the attitude that "I'll just take my chances". That is all too common. I'll be the first to admit that I began my ham career when hams did not have the money to afford the protection available now, had that protection even been popular among ham's or consumers at that time. Ham operators and consumers alike have more disposible income nowada |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message