Re: How to install DSL, how to install ethernet card?
On Sep 14, 7:07 pm, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 3:25 pm, fl_fly_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Since you think a pots line needs no secondaryprotectionfrom
> > 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
>
> fl_fly_boy: do you even bother to read your own citations? Your
> citation says thatprotectionis only for metallic mode. You
> therefore assume the only destructivesurgeis 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
>
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
> Polyswitch acts only like a fuse. The Sibar (or other equivalents
> such as Sidactor) providessurgeprotectioninside the phone AND for
> only one type ofsurge. fl_fly_bly - where is theprotection?
> 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. Protectionis already inside the phone as I posted
> and as fl_fly_boy repeatedly ignored.
>
> Telephone appliance contains internalprotection. 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 metallicprotectionarchitecture
> > against lightning and AC power faults
>
> Other type of surges that are typically destructive are not
> discussed because thatprotectionis 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 providesurgeprotection. Obviously the SiBar is the
> protector. Obviously the SiBar is only for one type ofsurge-
> 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,protectionalready 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 providesprotectionfrom another type ofsurgethat
> typically does damage? The telco 'whole house' protector ... if
> properly earthed. Protector that makes all type of surges irrelevant
> so thatprotectioninside POTS equipment is not overwhelmed.
> fl_fly_boy even demonstratedprotectionexists 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 modemprotection- 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 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 µs), 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 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.
> 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