Lightning eats SSA Excom Minutes

[Mike the Strike]

>From the latest SSA news:

"While I know this is going to sound like an excuse right up there with
"The dog ate my homework assignment..." last week the Carswell house in
Midlothian TX was struck by lightning (really). It blew a 10 foot hole
in the roof while Dean and his wife Tammie were trying to sleep through
a storm, traveled down two floors, and exited to ground along the path
of his internet access. The strike essentially fried everything
electrical in the house, including wiring and all computers, but
fortunately caused no fire. It remains to be seen if any of the Board
minutes Dean had on his hard drive are recoverable, but at least he had
printed out an interim version before things blew."

When I'm not flying gliders, I work with lightning stuff (typically
hardening high-tech facilities and forensic issues). We have all noted
a large increase in these sort of problems in recent years, and
coincidentally there was an article in today's Wall Street Journal
lamenting the same thing. Houses are increasingly full of expensive
electronic toys that get eaten by lightning, resulting in a sharp
increase in insurance claims in recent years.

Oh yes, and US houses, being mostly constructed out of wooden sticks
and paper, are often burned to the ground by lightning, so I guess Dean
was relatively lucky.

Mike (the Strike)

P.S. Gliders and lightning are best kept apart!

[Jack[_4_]]

Knowing the area where they live, which is out on a small ridge looking
out over teh valley that contains TSA, I can certainly believe this. I
owned 40 acres about a mile east of there and our barn and 150 bales of
hay were taken by a small tornado... Yeoch!!!

Jack Womack

[snoop]

I can vouch for that nasty night. I live about 5 miles north of Deans
residence and it was a very nasty night, most notably one with about
four hours of continuous booming and a ton of lightning. I left the
house about 0430 to fly a trip, and the sky just kept lighting up.
Interesting stuff!
Snoop

Jack wrote:
> Knowing the area where they live, which is out on a small ridge looking
> out over teh valley that contains TSA, I can certainly believe this. I
> owned 40 acres about a mile east of there and our barn and 150 bales of
> hay were taken by a small tornado... Yeoch!!!
>
> Jack Womack

[BT]

hopfully the drive will work in another computer..
BT

"Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> >From the latest SSA news:
>
> "While I know this is going to sound like an excuse right up there with
> "The dog ate my homework assignment..." last week the Carswell house in
> Midlothian TX was struck by lightning (really). It blew a 10 foot hole
> in the roof while Dean and his wife Tammie were trying to sleep through
> a storm, traveled down two floors, and exited to ground along the path
> of his internet access. The strike essentially fried everything
> electrical in the house, including wiring and all computers, but
> fortunately caused no fire. It remains to be seen if any of the Board
> minutes Dean had on his hard drive are recoverable, but at least he had
> printed out an interim version before things blew."
>
> When I'm not flying gliders, I work with lightning stuff (typically
> hardening high-tech facilities and forensic issues). We have all noted
> a large increase in these sort of problems in recent years, and
> coincidentally there was an article in today's Wall Street Journal
> lamenting the same thing. Houses are increasingly full of expensive
> electronic toys that get eaten by lightning, resulting in a sharp
> increase in insurance claims in recent years.
>
> Oh yes, and US houses, being mostly constructed out of wooden sticks
> and paper, are often burned to the ground by lightning, so I guess Dean
> was relatively lucky.
>
> Mike (the Strike)
>
> P.S. Gliders and lightning are best kept apart!
>

[Ray Roberts]

So wasn't it Ben Franklin that invented the fix for this problem, the
lightning rod, connected to earth ground?
I've often wondered why home insurance companies don't insist on having them
installed on each house they insure.
And no, my house doesn't have them either.


"BT" > wrote in message
...
> hopfully the drive will work in another computer..
> BT
>
> "Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> >From the latest SSA news:
>>
>> "While I know this is going to sound like an excuse right up there with
>> "The dog ate my homework assignment..." last week the Carswell house in
>> Midlothian TX was struck by lightning (really). It blew a 10 foot hole
>> in the roof while Dean and his wife Tammie were trying to sleep through
>> a storm, traveled down two floors, and exited to ground along the path
>> of his internet access. The strike essentially fried everything
>> electrical in the house, including wiring and all computers, but
>> fortunately caused no fire. It remains to be seen if any of the Board
>> minutes Dean had on his hard drive are recoverable, but at least he had
>> printed out an interim version before things blew."
>>
>> When I'm not flying gliders, I work with lightning stuff (typically
>> hardening high-tech facilities and forensic issues). We have all noted
>> a large increase in these sort of problems in recent years, and
>> coincidentally there was an article in today's Wall Street Journal
>> lamenting the same thing. Houses are increasingly full of expensive
>> electronic toys that get eaten by lightning, resulting in a sharp
>> increase in insurance claims in recent years.
>>
>> Oh yes, and US houses, being mostly constructed out of wooden sticks
>> and paper, are often burned to the ground by lightning, so I guess Dean
>> was relatively lucky.
>>
>> Mike (the Strike)
>>
>> P.S. Gliders and lightning are best kept apart!
>>
>
>

[Frank Whiteley]

Ray Roberts wrote:
> So wasn't it Ben Franklin that invented the fix for this problem, the
> lightning rod, connected to earth ground?
> I've often wondered why home insurance companies don't insist on having them
> installed on each house they insure.
> And no, my house doesn't have them either.
>
>
> "BT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > hopfully the drive will work in another computer..
> > BT
> >
> > "Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >> >From the latest SSA news:
> >>
> >> "While I know this is going to sound like an excuse right up there with
> >> "The dog ate my homework assignment..." last week the Carswell house in
> >> Midlothian TX was struck by lightning (really). It blew a 10 foot hole
> >> in the roof while Dean and his wife Tammie were trying to sleep through
> >> a storm, traveled down two floors, and exited to ground along the path
> >> of his internet access. The strike essentially fried everything
> >> electrical in the house, including wiring and all computers, but
> >> fortunately caused no fire. It remains to be seen if any of the Board
> >> minutes Dean had on his hard drive are recoverable, but at least he had
> >> printed out an interim version before things blew."
> >>
> >> When I'm not flying gliders, I work with lightning stuff (typically
> >> hardening high-tech facilities and forensic issues). We have all noted
> >> a large increase in these sort of problems in recent years, and
> >> coincidentally there was an article in today's Wall Street Journal
> >> lamenting the same thing. Houses are increasingly full of expensive
> >> electronic toys that get eaten by lightning, resulting in a sharp
> >> increase in insurance claims in recent years.
> >>
> >> Oh yes, and US houses, being mostly constructed out of wooden sticks
> >> and paper, are often burned to the ground by lightning, so I guess Dean
> >> was relatively lucky.
> >>
> >> Mike (the Strike)
> >>
> >> P.S. Gliders and lightning are best kept apart!
> >>
> >
> >
One of my customers has spikes at each roof peak, connected by chains
along all ridges that continue down to grounding rods at each corner.
Another customer lost a electrical appliances to a direct hit.

Frank Whiteley

[MickiMinner]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> >From the latest SSA news:
>
> "While I know this is going to sound like an excuse right up there with
> "The dog ate my homework assignment..." last week the Carswell house in
> Midlothian TX was struck by lightning (really).


Well, here in Tucson, we are sometimes known as the "lightning capital"
of America...and I have to tell you, we have a tree in the front yard
that was struck last year, while we were sitting in the house...sounded
like a terrorist bomb attack. The house shook, the power wavered off
and on, and the dogs went to hide. I firmly believe the story!

I have yet (lo, these many years) ever been able to recover a hard
drive from any power surge that great....sorry, I don't hold much hope!
Good luck.

micki minner

[[email protected]]

> ...struck by lightning (really).
> It blew a 10 foot hole in the roof...

Picutres ! We want Pictures !

[[email protected]]

My mobile medical unit was struck by lightning while traveling on the
interstate near Junction, TX some years ago. The bolt struck the left
forward corner of the trailer and traveled forward to the tractor
wiping out the lights, engine computer, gauges, head, taillight and
marker bulbs and much of the wiring and rearward through the trailer
where the only damage was to the ceramic insulators in the x-ray
processor heater located at least 25 feet aft of the strike. The
trailer framing is steel so the charge apparently traveled through it
to the road protecting the x-ray equipment; the entire cab on the
tractor (GMC Astro), however is fibreglass and the wiring, gauges,
engine, frame rails and computer were the pathway. The driver was
badly frightened, but otherwise OK.

I'm mildly curious as to what pathway lightning might follow through my
carbon and glass fibre glider (not curious enough to experiment
however). Like Micki, I also believe the story.

Ray Warshaw
1LK


MickiMinner wrote:
> Mike the Strike wrote:
> > >From the latest SSA news:
> >
> > "While I know this is going to sound like an excuse right up there with
> > "The dog ate my homework assignment..." last week the Carswell house in
> > Midlothian TX was struck by lightning (really).
>
>
> Well, here in Tucson, we are sometimes known as the "lightning capital"
> of America...and I have to tell you, we have a tree in the front yard
> that was struck last year, while we were sitting in the house...sounded
> like a terrorist bomb attack. The house shook, the power wavered off
> and on, and the dogs went to hide. I firmly believe the story!
>
> I have yet (lo, these many years) ever been able to recover a hard
> drive from any power surge that great....sorry, I don't hold much hope!
> Good luck.
>
> micki minner

[Frank Whiteley]

MickiMinner wrote:
> Mike the Strike wrote:
> > >From the latest SSA news:
> >
> > "While I know this is going to sound like an excuse right up there with
> > "The dog ate my homework assignment..." last week the Carswell house in
> > Midlothian TX was struck by lightning (really).
>
>
> Well, here in Tucson, we are sometimes known as the "lightning capital"
> of America...and I have to tell you, we have a tree in the front yard
> that was struck last year, while we were sitting in the house...sounded
> like a terrorist bomb attack. The house shook, the power wavered off
> and on, and the dogs went to hide. I firmly believe the story!
>
> I have yet (lo, these many years) ever been able to recover a hard
> drive from any power surge that great....sorry, I don't hold much hope!
> Good luck.
>
> micki minner
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/images/map.pdf shows the propensity
for lightning.

Florida has the most casualties, mostly on golf courses, but trails
behind many states in intensity.

The most intense storms I've personally experienced were in Nebraska
and Turkey.

Colorado has a lot of tornadoes, but tipping a shed or cow makes little
news.

Frank Whiteley

[Mike the Strike]

> I'm mildly curious as to what pathway lightning might follow through my
> carbon and glass fibre glider (not curious enough to experiment
> however). Like Micki, I also believe the story.
>
> Ray Warshaw
> 1LK
>
>

Vehicles are quite often struck by lightning and the damage varies from
nothing at all to (most often) damage to electrical and electronic
components, occasionally blown tires and (rarely) broken glass.
Lightning injuries inside vehicles are rare, but have been reported.

Damage to gliders depends on the current magnitude and duration of the
strike. Many gliders have survived weak cloud flashes with little
physical damage - I have personally examined two. The larger currents
of ground flashes can be more exciting as the arcs inside the glider
structure cause a large pressure pulse that can split a wing or blow
off the canopy. A severe positive ground flash blew a glider apart in
Britain a few years ago.

You may get a few warning signs when approaching an electrified cloud.
My Discus 2 produces small sparks from the release handle to my left
leg! Definitely a sign that you should fly somewhere else!

Mike

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> A severe positive ground flash blew a glider apart in
> Britain a few years ago.
>
That was a K-21. The strike entered at one aileron push rod and traveled
to the other aileron push-rod, where it exited, through the spanwise
alloy push-rods and control linkage.

Ohmic heating in the control linkage produced a strong enough pressure
pulse to cut the fuselage in half and to blow out both canopies. The
skins were blown off both wings as well.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[w_tom]

Ray Roberts wrote:
> So wasn't it Ben Franklin that invented the fix for this problem, the
> lightning rod, connected to earth ground?
> I've often wondered why home insurance companies don't insist on having them
> installed on each house they insure.
> And no, my house doesn't have them either.

Well over 95% of all trees struck by lightning do not leave an
indication. If lightning is rarely so destructive, then why install
lightning rods? Of course, older homes already had a sort of lightning
rod - a cast iron sewer vent pipe. But more often struck are higher
earthing conductors - AC electric wires on telephone poles. If an
earth ground wire on utility poles is intact, then that is often a
better (electrically shorter) path to earth.

Using that paragraph, then one living in a newer home with plastic
pipes and underground utilities wires may consider Franklin lightning
rods (not to be confused with ESE devices).

A more common path to earth through a house is incoming on AC
electric wires (think of those wires as a large antenna network
connected directly to each household appliance). Few who suffer
appliance damage file insurance claims. Either a surge is harmlessly
earthed where utility wires enter a building, or lightning finds a
destructive path to earth via appliances.

Most commonly damaged are appliances that connect to telephone lines
because telco routinely earths a 'whole house' protector for every
subscriber - installed for free. Incoming on AC electric. Through
modem, portable telephone base station, or fax machine. Outgoing to
earth ground via telephone line. Many instead assume this is a surge
that enters via phone line. Fine. But then what was an outgoing path
to earth? No outgoing path means no electricity - no damage. Why did
the transient not take a shorter earthing path via a telco 'installed
for free' protector?

There is no stopping or blocking of lightning as plug-in protector
manufacturers hope you believe. Lightning damage is made irrelevant by
installing a so inexpensive and properly sized 'whole house' protector
on AC mains where that wire enters the building AND earthed to same
electrode used by telephone and cable TV. Effective protectors are
found in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses using
responsible brand names such as Intermatic, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer,
Leviton, Square D, and GE. Effective protector for a typically most
destructive lightning path costs about $1 per protected appliance.

That protector also does not stop or absorb anything. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground. Effective protectors make a
short and temporary connection to earth. Cable TV does not need a
protector since cable is earthed directly by hardwire.

We still build homes as we did when transistors did not exist
pre-1970. Most essential component of a protector system is earth
ground. Best protected homes have lightning protection installed when
footing are pour - halo or Ufer grounding. This because all lightnting
protection (Franklin rods, 'whole house' protector) is only as
effective as the earthing. However even upgrading household earthing
to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements will
provide massive improvements.

So again, why is this protection not routinely installed? Many
believe a plug-in protector will somehow stop or absorb what 3 miles of
sky could not. Number of claims submitted to insurance companies
remains low. We still don't require effective lightning protection
that has been made essential since 1970. Lightning striking a house
via the roof is rare. Lightning directly striking household appliances
is more common - typically once every seven years. A number that
varies significantly even within neighborhoods. A problem made
irrelevant if each incoming utility wire in each cable is earthed
before it can enter the building. Effective protector earths each
incoming wire so that lightning need not damage household appliance.
How effective is your protection system? Protection begins with
quality of a single point earth ground.

[Doug Haluza]

w_tom wrote:
> Ray Roberts wrote:
> Most commonly damaged are appliances that connect to telephone lines
> because telco routinely earths a 'whole house' protector for every
> subscriber - installed for free. Incoming on AC electric. Through
> modem, portable telephone base station, or fax machine. Outgoing to
> earth ground via telephone line. Many instead assume this is a surge
> that enters via phone line. Fine. But then what was an outgoing path
> to earth? No outgoing path means no electricity - no damage. Why did
> the transient not take a shorter earthing path via a telco 'installed
> for free' protector?

Current flows in a complete circuit--direction is arbitrary and
irrelevant. What actually happens in many cases of applicance damage is
not voltage surges, it's ground potential difference. If your power,
telephone, cable TV and water services do not enter at the same point
and have common grounding, they can have different "gound" potentials
relative to each other. Even if lightning does not strike your house
directly, it disturbs the ground potential for a large area. This is
why telephones, televisions and refrigerators with ice makers are often
damaged--they are connected to two different systems.

[Bill Daniels]

I was working on my computer when my neighbors house got struck - 100 feet
away. The strike went through the roof hiting the upstairs copper water
pipes which set the house on fire. My neighbors were at home watching TV
and reported that a fireball danced around the living room for a few
seconds. Fortunately, all the pinholes blasted into the water pipes put the
fire out within a minute but the total insured damage was still in excess of
$50,000.

My lights dimmed for a second but the computer never blinked. I use a good
UPS.

Bill Daniels


"Doug Haluza" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> w_tom wrote:
>> Ray Roberts wrote:
>> Most commonly damaged are appliances that connect to telephone lines
>> because telco routinely earths a 'whole house' protector for every
>> subscriber - installed for free. Incoming on AC electric. Through
>> modem, portable telephone base station, or fax machine. Outgoing to
>> earth ground via telephone line. Many instead assume this is a surge
>> that enters via phone line. Fine. But then what was an outgoing path
>> to earth? No outgoing path means no electricity - no damage. Why did
>> the transient not take a shorter earthing path via a telco 'installed
>> for free' protector?
>
> Current flows in a complete circuit--direction is arbitrary and
> irrelevant. What actually happens in many cases of applicance damage is
> not voltage surges, it's ground potential difference. If your power,
> telephone, cable TV and water services do not enter at the same point
> and have common grounding, they can have different "gound" potentials
> relative to each other. Even if lightning does not strike your house
> directly, it disturbs the ground potential for a large area. This is
> why telephones, televisions and refrigerators with ice makers are often
> damaged--they are connected to two different systems.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Doug Haluza wrote:

> Current flows in a complete circuit--direction is arbitrary and
> irrelevant. What actually happens in many cases of applicance damage is
> not voltage surges, it's ground potential difference. If your power,
> telephone, cable TV and water services do not enter at the same point
> and have common grounding, they can have different "gound" potentials
> relative to each other. Even if lightning does not strike your house
> directly, it disturbs the ground potential for a large area. This is
> why telephones, televisions and refrigerators with ice makers are often
> damaged--they are connected to two different systems.

If the surge protector has a cable or phone jack connector in addition
to the AC sockets, would that protect the TV or telephone?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Mike the Strike wrote:
>> A severe positive ground flash blew a glider apart in
>> Britain a few years ago.
>>
> That was a K-21. The strike entered at one aileron push rod and traveled
> to the other aileron push-rod, where it exited, through the spanwise
> alloy push-rods and control linkage.
>
> Ohmic heating in the control linkage produced a strong enough pressure
> pulse to cut the fuselage in half and to blow out both canopies. The
> skins were blown off both wings as well.

Did the pilots report noticing any sparks, tingling, or other
"electrification" before the strike? I've had lightning strike within a
mile of my glider without noticing any signs of it, before or after.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

You must mean the ASK21 GBP which was destroyed near the London Gliding
Club, Dunstable on 17th April 1999.

The AAIB report may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500699.pdf .

The pictures and other illustrations do not appear to be available, though I
have them, downloaded when the report was first published.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>> I'm mildly curious as to what pathway lightning might follow through my
>> carbon and glass fibre glider (not curious enough to experiment
>> however). Like Micki, I also believe the story.
>>
>> Ray Warshaw
>> 1LK
>>
>
> Vehicles are quite often struck by lightning and the damage varies from
> nothing at all to (most often) damage to electrical and electronic
> components, occasionally blown tires and (rarely) broken glass.
> Lightning injuries inside vehicles are rare, but have been reported.
>
> Damage to gliders depends on the current magnitude and duration of the
> strike. Many gliders have survived weak cloud flashes with little
> physical damage - I have personally examined two. The larger currents
> of ground flashes can be more exciting as the arcs inside the glider
> structure cause a large pressure pulse that can split a wing or blow
> off the canopy. A severe positive ground flash blew a glider apart in
> Britain a few years ago.
>
> You may get a few warning signs when approaching an electrified cloud.
> My Discus 2 produces small sparks from the release handle to my left
> leg! Definitely a sign that you should fly somewhere else!
>
> Mike
>

[Doug Haluza]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>
> > Current flows in a complete circuit--direction is arbitrary and
> > irrelevant. What actually happens in many cases of applicance damage is
> > not voltage surges, it's ground potential difference. If your power,
> > telephone, cable TV and water services do not enter at the same point
> > and have common grounding, they can have different "gound" potentials
> > relative to each other. Even if lightning does not strike your house
> > directly, it disturbs the ground potential for a large area. This is
> > why telephones, televisions and refrigerators with ice makers are often
> > damaged--they are connected to two different systems.
>
> If the surge protector has a cable or phone jack connector in addition
> to the AC sockets, would that protect the TV or telephone?
>
It is helpful to have a common surge protector for low energy
disturbances, but it cannot completely make up for a lack of proper
bonding in a high energy situation. For example, if the telephone guy
drove a separate ground rod, and it is not bonded to your power service
ground, your $10 surge protector is not going to survive a nearby
strike.

[Michael Ash]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Doug Haluza wrote:
>
>> Current flows in a complete circuit--direction is arbitrary and
>> irrelevant. What actually happens in many cases of applicance damage is
>> not voltage surges, it's ground potential difference. If your power,
>> telephone, cable TV and water services do not enter at the same point
>> and have common grounding, they can have different "gound" potentials
>> relative to each other. Even if lightning does not strike your house
>> directly, it disturbs the ground potential for a large area. This is
>> why telephones, televisions and refrigerators with ice makers are often
>> damaged--they are connected to two different systems.
>
> If the surge protector has a cable or phone jack connector in addition
> to the AC sockets, would that protect the TV or telephone?

To the extent that the surge protector is able, yes. However, the cheap
power strip surge protectors that people often have are unlikely to absorb
a lighting strike. If this is your goal, make sure you purchase one that
says it can handle it. The good ones have attached equipment guarantees,
where they'll pay for damage if their stuff fails to protect your stuff.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[bud--]

On Nov 23, 9:56 am, "w_tom" > wrote:
>
> There is no stopping or blocking of lightning as plug-in protector
> manufacturers hope you believe.
The best information I have seen on surges and surge protection is at
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the
IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US).

A second guide is
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency
formerly called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001

Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public
to explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was
targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background.

Both say plug-in surge suppressors are effective.

All interconnected devices, like a computer and printer, need to
connect to the same surge protector. If a device, like a computer, has
external connections like phone or LAN, all those wires have to run
through the surge suppressor for protection. This type of suppressor is
called a surge reference equalizer (SRE) by the IEEE (also described by
the NIST). The voltage on all wires connected to the SRE (power, phone,
CATV, LAN, ...) are clamped to a common ground at the SRE and the
voltages are held to a value that is safe to the connected device.
Ratings vary from junk to very high.

While a single point ground with phone, CATV, ... protectors connecting
with short wires to the grounding electrode wire at the power service
is best for eliminating the ground potential differences in Doug's
post, SREs also provide protection.

>
> That protector also does not stop or absorb anything. A protector is
> only as effective as its earth ground. Effective protectors make a
> short and temporary connection to earth.
As is clearly described in the IEEE guide, plug-in suppressors work by
clamping,.They do not work primarily by earthing, or stopping,
blocking, absorbing.

>
> Many
> believe a plug-in protector will somehow stop or absorb what 3 miles of
> sky could not.
Among those who believe that are the IEEE and NIST.

--
bud--

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> Mike the Strike wrote:
>>> A severe positive ground flash blew a glider apart in
>>> Britain a few years ago.
>>>
>> That was a K-21. The strike entered at one aileron push rod and
>> traveled to the other aileron push-rod, where it exited, through the
>> spanwise alloy push-rods and control linkage.
>>
>> Ohmic heating in the control linkage produced a strong enough pressure
>> pulse to cut the fuselage in half and to blow out both canopies. The
>> skins were blown off both wings as well.
>
> Did the pilots report noticing any sparks, tingling, or other
> "electrification" before the strike? I've had lightning strike within a
> mile of my glider without noticing any signs of it, before or after.
>
No, nothing reported by either pilot. Additional support them not being
directly or indirectly affected is that the AAIB report says that only
the aileron control system showed signs of damage from the strike: even
the airbrake system showed no signs of electrical damage and probably
didn't carry any current.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[w_tom]

Michael Ash wrote:
> To the extent that the surge protector is able, yes. However, the cheap
> power strip surge protectors that people often have are unlikely to absorb
> a lighting strike. If this is your goal, make sure you purchase one that
> says it can handle it. ...

Show me a surge protector with numbers that can 'absorb' or therefore
eliiminate surges? Myth purveyors - those who never looked inside nor
read a manufacturer datasheet - believe a surge protector somehow stops
or absorbs what three miles of sky could not. An appliance connects
directly to AC mains when plugged into a power strip protector. What
is 'in series' to absorb those joules? Nothing. There is no
electrical dam inside that power strip protector. Absorbing is not a
protector function. But with profits so high, myth promoters need you
to make that assumption and hope you ignore those numbers. How many
joules?

They are shunt mode devices. They become conductors only during a
transient - shunting a transient to all other wires. IOW transient now
has even more wires to find earth ground destructively via adjacent
appliances. Yes, adjacent protectors have even contributed to damage
of a powered off appliance. What is the shunt path to earth? Reread
the Carswell story. That transient will seek any path to earth. Give
it a better, non-destructive path; no damage. That is what 'whole
house' protectors and lightning rods accomplish because they provide a
shorter path to earth. Nothing absorbed by protector or lightning rod.

Effective protectors are best located farther from an appliance and
as close to earth ground as is possible ... to shunt to earth. But
again. Show me the numbers. Do you really believe a protector rated
for but hundreds of joules will absorb thousands or millions of joules?

> There is no stopping or blocking of lightning as plug-in
> protector manufacturers hope you believe. Lightning
> damage is made irrelevant by installing a so inexpensive
> and properly sized 'whole house' protector on AC mains
> where that wire enters the building AND earthed to same
> electrode used by telephone and cable TV. Effective
> protectors are found in Lowes, Home Depot, and
> electrical supply houses using responsible brand names
> such as Intermatic, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton,
> Square D, and GE. Effective protector for a typically
> most destructive lightning path costs about $1 per
> protected appliance.
>
> That protector also does not stop or absorb anything. A
> protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
> Effective protectors make a short and temporary
> connection to earth.

Cheap power strips include those $150 Monster Cable products sold in
Circuit City. How do you know they are cheap? Where is the dedicated
earthing wire? No earth ground means no effective protection.

[MickiMinner]

somewhere, in some safety bulletin somewhere, or maybe in the soaring
magazine, is a truly FRIGHTENING account by Ken Sorenson when his plane
(while flying) was struck by lightening.....glass and carbon, but you
would be amazed. Ken was flying in a contest at Moriarty when it
happened. He was able to land safely, after the cockpit exploded from
the pressure wave....

I don't think anyone wants to "experiment" like that!

Micki and
Charlie-Lite

[Michael Ash]

w_tom > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> To the extent that the surge protector is able, yes. However, the cheap
>> power strip surge protectors that people often have are unlikely to absorb
>> a lighting strike. If this is your goal, make sure you purchase one that
>> says it can handle it. ...
>
> Show me a surge protector with numbers that can 'absorb' or therefore
> eliiminate surges? Myth purveyors - those who never looked inside nor
> read a manufacturer datasheet - believe a surge protector somehow stops
> or absorbs what three miles of sky could not. An appliance connects
> directly to AC mains when plugged into a power strip protector. What
> is 'in series' to absorb those joules? Nothing. There is no
> electrical dam inside that power strip protector. Absorbing is not a
> protector function. But with profits so high, myth promoters need you
> to make that assumption and hope you ignore those numbers. How many
> joules?

"Says it can handle it" is more than technical specs. A good attached
equipment guarantee is the best way to say that it can handle a strike.
This gives the manufacturer a good financial incentive to build their
equipment well, and if they fail then they'll pay you for the equipment
lost. Of course they won't recover lost data, but that's why you should
make backups anyway.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[w_tom]

Guarantee is obviously so chock full of exemptions as to only convince
the naive. Plug-in protectors do not claim to provide protection. It
provides protection from a typically non-destructive transient. Then
phrase the claim so that naive will assume that is protection from all
types of surges. Same half-truth word games got so many to believe
Saddam had WMDs.

That plug-in protector does not claim to handle anything. Have
doubts? Then put up their numerical specifications for each type of
transient. Little hint. No such numerical claims exist. But then
tobacco companies also successfully promoted claims in 1950s and 1960s
that smoking provided better health. Yes, many also believed those
myths.

Hardware protectors that are effective are those that have that
dedicated earthing wire. Effective solutions also costs tens of times
less money. Plug-in protectors avoid discussion about earthing to sell
grossly profitable and often grossly undersized protectors. They are
good at getting others to strongly endorse myths - as demonstrated in
this thread. Where are the numbers? Not provided because so many know
only using subjective reasoning.

So where are numerical specs that "says it can handle it"? Numbers
don't exist for same reason an American president could proclaim Saddam
had WMDs. No numbers - just subjective claims. Sufficient to have many
promote myths rather than ask some embarrassing questions.

Home protection including appliances has always been about earthing -
as even Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752.

Michael Ash wrote:
> "Says it can handle it" is more than technical specs. A good attached
> equipment guarantee is the best way to say that it can handle a strike.
> This gives the manufacturer a good financial incentive to build their
> equipment well, and if they fail then they'll pay you for the equipment
> lost. Of course they won't recover lost data, but that's why you should
> make backups anyway.

[bud--]

On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, "w_tom" > wrote:
>
> That plug-in protector does not claim to handle anything.
Humor for the day.

> Have
> doubts? Then put up their numerical specifications for each type of
> transient. Little hint. No such numerical claims exist.
A bs argument. You have never provided a link to any site that has the
specs you say are required. If you could look at the nice pictures in
the IEEE guide you could see power wires have MOVs H-N, H-G, N-G -
covering all modes. In addition, common mode surges (H & N lift away
from G) coming in on the power line are converted to transverse mode
surges (H lifts away from N & G) by the N-G bond in US services.

>
> Hardware protectors that are effective are those that have that
> dedicated earthing wire.
Your religious views on earthing are not shared by the IEEE or NIST.
Plainly described in the IEEE guide - protection is by clamping, not
earthing.



> They are
> good at getting others to strongly endorse myths - as demonstrated in
> this thread. Where are the numbers? Not provided because so many know
> only using subjective reasoning.
I have provided links from the IEEE and NIST that say plug-in surge
suppressors are effective. You have provided your myths and subjective
reasoning.

--
bud--

[[email protected]]

Check this guy out (click view profile in Google groups)!

He keeps on posting the same answers in different group discussions
that have to do with lightning strikes.

Amateur lightning enthusiast? Industry advocate? Surge protector
vendor?

Who knows...


bud-- wrote:
> On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, "w_tom" > wrote:
> >
> > That plug-in protector does not claim to handle anything.
> Humor for the day.
>
> > Have
> > doubts? Then put up their numerical specifications for each type of
> > transient. Little hint. No such numerical claims exist.
> A bs argument. You have never provided a link to any site that has the
> specs you say are required. If you could look at the nice pictures in
> the IEEE guide you could see power wires have MOVs H-N, H-G, N-G -
> covering all modes. In addition, common mode surges (H & N lift away
> from G) coming in on the power line are converted to transverse mode
> surges (H lifts away from N & G) by the N-G bond in US services.
>
> >
> > Hardware protectors that are effective are those that have that
> > dedicated earthing wire.
> Your religious views on earthing are not shared by the IEEE or NIST.
> Plainly described in the IEEE guide - protection is by clamping, not
> earthing.
>
>
>
> > They are
> > good at getting others to strongly endorse myths - as demonstrated in
> > this thread. Where are the numbers? Not provided because so many know
> > only using subjective reasoning.
> I have provided links from the IEEE and NIST that say plug-in surge
> suppressors are effective. You have provided your myths and subjective
> reasoning.
>
> --
> bud--

[[email protected]]

bud-- wrote:
> On Nov 23, 9:56 am, "w_tom" > wrote:
> >
> > There is no stopping or blocking of lightning as plug-in protector
> > manufacturers hope you believe.
> The best information I have seen on surges and surge protection is at
> http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
> - the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
> lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
> power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the
> IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
> engineers in the US).
>
> A second guide is
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
> - this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
> protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency
> formerly called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001
>
> Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public
> to explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was
> targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background.
>
> Both say plug-in surge suppressors are effective.
>
> All interconnected devices, like a computer and printer, need to
> connect to the same surge protector. If a device, like a computer, has
> external connections like phone or LAN, all those wires have to run
> through the surge suppressor for protection. This type of suppressor is
> called a surge reference equalizer (SRE) by the IEEE (also described by
> the NIST). The voltage on all wires connected to the SRE (power, phone,
> CATV, LAN, ...) are clamped to a common ground at the SRE and the
> voltages are held to a value that is safe to the connected device.
> Ratings vary from junk to very high.
>
> While a single point ground with phone, CATV, ... protectors connecting
> with short wires to the grounding electrode wire at the power service
> is best for eliminating the ground potential differences in Doug's
> post, SREs also provide protection.
>
> >
> > That protector also does not stop or absorb anything. A protector is
> > only as effective as its earth ground. Effective protectors make a
> > short and temporary connection to earth.
> As is clearly described in the IEEE guide, plug-in suppressors work by
> clamping,.They do not work primarily by earthing, or stopping,
> blocking, absorbing.
>
> >
> > Many
> > believe a plug-in protector will somehow stop or absorb what 3 miles of
> > sky could not.
> Among those who believe that are the IEEE and NIST.

I suggest that you go back and re-read your references. For instance,
on pg. 38:

Well-designed and well-built plug-in protectors will actually withstand
the
10,000 A (8x20 µs) surge current, and that is rating required by NFPA
780-2004
for plug-in protectors. However, the UL 1449 Standard only requires
plug-in
protectors to withstand, without damage, ~20 500 A surges. Inexpensive
protectors using the 6C type of circuit are designed to respond to
overload by
opening the protective fusing shown in Figure 6C, sometimes at surge
currents
barely over the 500 A limit. Because the UL 500 A surge withstand
requirements
are relatively weak, it is important to have both a hard-wired
protector at the
service entrance and a plug-in protector at the critical loads.

This clearly recommends that you don't depend upon a surge protector
alone, simply because the minimum UL requirements are REALLY a minimum.
Most people don't know that surge protectors use devices (MOVs) that
have a limited life, and they don't have a visible indicator showing
how much of their life is left. High quality surge protectors are sold
by www.zerosurge.com.

The IEEE report confirms what w_tom was saying about voltage
differentials on the building grounding during a lightning strike:

If wiring comes into a building at many different points, it is much
more difficult
to get proper protection against lightning surges. Even if surge
protectors are
installed at these alternate entry points, the long ground wires
running back to the
main building ground greatly reduce the effectiveness of the
protectors. In highlightning
areas, where lightning protection is a major concern, it is worth
routing
as many AC and signal cables as possible past the building power entry
point, to
facilitate good grounding for protectors and cable sheaths

I highly recommend a thorough reading of the IEEE document for a
complete discussion of this issue. The take home message: individual
surge protection devices ARE NOT a complete lightning protection plan.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Frank Whiteley]

wrote:
> bud-- wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 9:56 am, "w_tom" > wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no stopping or blocking of lightning as plug-in protector
> > > manufacturers hope you believe.
> > The best information I have seen on surges and surge protection is at
> > http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
> > - the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
> > lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
> > power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the
> > IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
> > engineers in the US).
> >
> > A second guide is
> > http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
> > - this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
> > protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
> > Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency
> > formerly called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001
> >
> > Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public
> > to explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was
> > targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background.
> >
> > Both say plug-in surge suppressors are effective.
> >
> > All interconnected devices, like a computer and printer, need to
> > connect to the same surge protector. If a device, like a computer, has
> > external connections like phone or LAN, all those wires have to run
> > through the surge suppressor for protection. This type of suppressor is
> > called a surge reference equalizer (SRE) by the IEEE (also described by
> > the NIST). The voltage on all wires connected to the SRE (power, phone,
> > CATV, LAN, ...) are clamped to a common ground at the SRE and the
> > voltages are held to a value that is safe to the connected device.
> > Ratings vary from junk to very high.
> >
> > While a single point ground with phone, CATV, ... protectors connecting
> > with short wires to the grounding electrode wire at the power service
> > is best for eliminating the ground potential differences in Doug's
> > post, SREs also provide protection.
> >
> > >
> > > That protector also does not stop or absorb anything. A protector is
> > > only as effective as its earth ground. Effective protectors make a
> > > short and temporary connection to earth.
> > As is clearly described in the IEEE guide, plug-in suppressors work by
> > clamping,.They do not work primarily by earthing, or stopping,
> > blocking, absorbing.
> >
> > >
> > > Many
> > > believe a plug-in protector will somehow stop or absorb what 3 miles of
> > > sky could not.
> > Among those who believe that are the IEEE and NIST.
>
> I suggest that you go back and re-read your references. For instance,
> on pg. 38:
>
> Well-designed and well-built plug-in protectors will actually withstand
> the
> 10,000 A (8x20 µs) surge current, and that is rating required by NFPA
> 780-2004
> for plug-in protectors. However, the UL 1449 Standard only requires
> plug-in
> protectors to withstand, without damage, ~20 500 A surges. Inexpensive
> protectors using the 6C type of circuit are designed to respond to
> overload by
> opening the protective fusing shown in Figure 6C, sometimes at surge
> currents
> barely over the 500 A limit. Because the UL 500 A surge withstand
> requirements
> are relatively weak, it is important to have both a hard-wired
> protector at the
> service entrance and a plug-in protector at the critical loads.
>
> This clearly recommends that you don't depend upon a surge protector
> alone, simply because the minimum UL requirements are REALLY a minimum.
> Most people don't know that surge protectors use devices (MOVs) that
> have a limited life, and they don't have a visible indicator showing
> how much of their life is left. High quality surge protectors are sold
> by www.zerosurge.com.
>
> The IEEE report confirms what w_tom was saying about voltage
> differentials on the building grounding during a lightning strike:
>
> If wiring comes into a building at many different points, it is much
> more difficult
> to get proper protection against lightning surges. Even if surge
> protectors are
> installed at these alternate entry points, the long ground wires
> running back to the
> main building ground greatly reduce the effectiveness of the
> protectors. In highlightning
> areas, where lightning protection is a major concern, it is worth
> routing
> as many AC and signal cables as possible past the building power entry
> point, to
> facilitate good grounding for protectors and cable sheaths
>
> I highly recommend a thorough reading of the IEEE document for a
> complete discussion of this issue. The take home message: individual
> surge protection devices ARE NOT a complete lightning protection plan.
>
> Tom Seim
> Richland, WA
Many surge protectors 'wear out' in about five years on our local power
grid. Some of the very old models (those with reset buttons) often
simply stay on permanently, offering no protection at all. Others will
no longer reset (by disconnecting/reconnecting at the outlet). It does
show that they are doing their job, but they are consumed in the
process.

Frank Whiteley

[Doug Haluza]

Sounds like the bonding strap may be broken on your pedals, or possibly
it was not replaced properly when the tow hook was serviced. Although
fixing this may make your early warning less effective, you will be
better off in the long run.

Mike the Strike wrote:
>
> You may get a few warning signs when approaching an electrified cloud.
> My Discus 2 produces small sparks from the release handle to my left
> leg! Definitely a sign that you should fly somewhere else!
>