We're thinking of replacing a coil electric cooktop with a
ceramic cooktop. Gas isn't feasible where we live.

I'm glad I reviewed this newsgroup before acting. I understand
cast iron skillets are a problem, and I don't know what we
would do without ours. We do a lot of stir fry so we need
something that takes a lot of heat and doesn't stick.

We have a Lodge 10" skillet which is the most readily
available. Any recommendations for a replacement? It shouldn't
stick and it must take heat.

Second point which I haven't seen discussed, and that is
replacement of heating elements, also cost of replacement.
Every now and then, a coil burns out and needs replacement.
This is not a problem except perhaps getting charged too much.

What do you do for a glass cooktop? Can one open up the box
and replace the heating element, whatever it is? How much does
it cost? Or does one replace the entire top?

Third, is the controls, touch or knobs. We have bad experience
with a GE oven with touch controls. Power here is dirty. Every
year or so the touch control gets fried and I have to replace
it. That is pretty costly. It seems to me GE could have put in
surge protector, but cut costs by leaving it out. The lack
really irks me.

So, I'm inclined to knobs for the cooktop rather than touch
controls. Comments please.

Fourth, from comments here it appears that lots of cooking
ware may scratch the glass surface. Aluminum seems
particularly bad, fortunately we don't use aluminum. What else
should be avoided?

--
John

"John K. Taber" > wrote in message
...
> We're thinking of replacing a coil electric cooktop with a
> ceramic cooktop. Gas isn't feasible where we live.
>
> I'm glad I reviewed this newsgroup before acting. I understand
> cast iron skillets are a problem, and I don't know what we
> would do without ours. We do a lot of stir fry so we need
> something that takes a lot of heat and doesn't stick.
>
> We have a Lodge 10" skillet which is the most readily
> available. Any recommendations for a replacement? It shouldn't
> stick and it must take heat.
>
> Second point which I haven't seen discussed, and that is
> replacement of heating elements, also cost of replacement.
> Every now and then, a coil burns out and needs replacement.
> This is not a problem except perhaps getting charged too much.
>
> What do you do for a glass cooktop? Can one open up the box
> and replace the heating element, whatever it is? How much does
> it cost? Or does one replace the entire top?
>
> Third, is the controls, touch or knobs. We have bad experience
> with a GE oven with touch controls. Power here is dirty. Every
> year or so the touch control gets fried and I have to replace
> it. That is pretty costly. It seems to me GE could have put in
> surge protector, but cut costs by leaving it out. The lack
> really irks me.
>
> So, I'm inclined to knobs for the cooktop rather than touch
> controls. Comments please.
>
> Fourth, from comments here it appears that lots of cooking
> ware may scratch the glass surface. Aluminum seems
> particularly bad, fortunately we don't use aluminum. What else
> should be avoided?

I have used my mother's Kitchen Aid ceramic cooktop. Here are some
observations from someone who has a gas range.
First, I was surprised at how much better the ceramic top was than I
expected. It was reasonably responsive -- much better than the previous
electric coil style ranges that had used for years. Her cooktop is the
white version. I would never get one in white. The thing is a nightmare to
keep clean. That is something that I found surprising in a bad way as I
expected that it would wipe clean without much effort. I agree with your
observations about the knobs versus the touch pad. As for servicing burned
out elements - I suppose it can be done, but it is probably one of those
situations where it would be more cost effective to get a new range.
Therefore, I would take a close look at the warranty before buying one. As
for cookware, I think that tri-ply or disk bottom stainless would be fine.
I like my Wolfgang Puck stainless from HSN.com The bottoms are very thick,
especially on the 11 inch skillet. I think you would be satisfied with the
performance of this pan on the ceramic top as a replacement for your cast
iron skillet. It would be exactly the same, but close enough.

Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
>Fourth, from comments here it appears that lots of cooking
>ware may scratch the glass surface. Aluminum seems
>particularly bad, fortunately we don't use aluminum. What else
>should be avoided?

Pretty much ditto what Vox said. Mine was in my ten year old house when
I bought it three years ago.

I have a black glass cooktop, with knobs. I certainly don't like it as
much as gas, but far far more than coils.

I was warned about using only a certain cleaner on it, lest I ruin the
"finish", but I found it (something like soft-soap, the mild abrasive
stuff) such a royal pain. I couldn't get the cleaner off!

So I just drenched it with Windex. Badda bing badda boom, clean as a
whistle. I've used it ever since.

Since I really didn't want electric, but had virtually no choice, I
haven't bent over backwards to take care of it, but it's got only a very
few scratches and still looks only slightly used. So lacking a flame,
it's a pretty damned good surface.

I have to assume that white would indeed be a nightmare.

Please see my interspersed comments.

"John K. Taber" > wrote in message
...
> We're thinking of replacing a coil electric cooktop with a
> ceramic cooktop. Gas isn't feasible where we live.
>
> I'm glad I reviewed this newsgroup before acting. I understand
> cast iron skillets are a problem, and I don't know what we
> would do without ours. We do a lot of stir fry so we need
> something that takes a lot of heat and doesn't stick.

We regularly use a large and a small cast iron skillet on out Dacor flat
top. You certainly want one with a flat bottom as opposed to the small
raised ridge that some have around the bottom. But they work fine. For stir
fry a flat bottomed carbon steel wok works fine. It'll take all the heat you
can give it and once seasoned will not stick.
>
> We have a Lodge 10" skillet which is the most readily
> available. Any recommendations for a replacement? It shouldn't
> stick and it must take heat.
>
> Second point which I haven't seen discussed, and that is
> replacement of heating elements, also cost of replacement.
> Every now and then, a coil burns out and needs replacement.
> This is not a problem except perhaps getting charged too much.
>
> What do you do for a glass cooktop? Can one open up the box
> and replace the heating element, whatever it is? How much does
> it cost? Or does one replace the entire top?
>

This I do not know. Ours has been fine for 5 years.

> Third, is the controls, touch or knobs. We have bad experience
> with a GE oven with touch controls. Power here is dirty. Every
> year or so the touch control gets fried and I have to replace
> it. That is pretty costly. It seems to me GE could have put in
> surge protector, but cut costs by leaving it out. The lack
> really irks me.

We have knobs for the surface elements and touch controls for everything
else, and it has been fine. I do not know if we have "dirty" power. remember
a knob may just be a control for a solid state control circuit that is just
as susceptible to power spikes.

> So, I'm inclined to knobs for the cooktop rather than touch
> controls. Comments please.
>
> Fourth, from comments here it appears that lots of cooking
> ware may scratch the glass surface. Aluminum seems
> particularly bad, fortunately we don't use aluminum. What else
> should be avoided?

Scratches are unavoidable but so what? There was concern with early flat top
ranges that a single scratch could weaken the entire top and make it prone
to breaking but that does not seem to be a concern with the new models. At
least there is no mention of it in the manual. It would be nice to have a
scratch-free top after a few years but it is unrealistic.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Dirty" power problems are partially solved inside all
appliances. But existing internal protection assumes building
has been properly wired. 'Whole house' protectors must be
connected at service entrance and make a 'less than 10 foot'
connection to the building's single point earth ground. Two
requirements in that sentence. Notice that the telco has
earthed such protectors, routinely and for free, for probably
longer than must lurkers here have even existed. The
technology is that well proven, that long understood, and
still not installed on residential homes.

If you have not installed the necessary and essential 'whole
house' protector AND have no upgraded building earth ground to
meet or exceed post 1990 NEC requirements, then appliance
failure is acceptable. Appliances have internal protection.
But that protection can be overwhelmed if building wide
protection - the 'whole house' protector - is not installed.
Appliance protection assumes destructive incoming transients
will be earthed before entering the building.

This is well understood in the newsgroup
comp.home.automation . Summaries of what is required:
"RJ-11 line protection?" on 31 Dec 2003 in pdx.computing, or
http://tinyurl.com/2hl53 or
"Opinions on Surge Protectors?" on 7 Jul 2003 in the
newsgroup alt.certification.a-plus or
http://tinyurl.com/l3m9


"John K. Taber" wrote:
> We're thinking of replacing a coil electric cooktop with a
> ceramic cooktop. Gas isn't feasible where we live.
> ...
>
> Third, is the controls, touch or knobs. We have bad experience
> with a GE oven with touch controls. Power here is dirty. Every
> year or so the touch control gets fried and I have to replace
> it. That is pretty costly. It seems to me GE could have put in
> surge protector, but cut costs by leaving it out. The lack
> really irks me.
>
> So, I'm inclined to knobs for the cooktop rather than touch
> controls. Comments please.

Just a thought--Could you not ask your electrician to install a surge
protector for the range? It would have to be pretty honkin' big one,
considering the amount of current a range draws, but it might be worth it.


"John K. Taber" > wrote in message
...
> We're thinking of replacing a coil electric cooktop with a
> ceramic cooktop. Gas isn't feasible where we live.
>
> I'm glad I reviewed this newsgroup before acting. I understand
> cast iron skillets are a problem, and I don't know what we
> would do without ours. We do a lot of stir fry so we need
> something that takes a lot of heat and doesn't stick.
>
> We have a Lodge 10" skillet which is the most readily
> available. Any recommendations for a replacement? It shouldn't
> stick and it must take heat.
>
> Second point which I haven't seen discussed, and that is
> replacement of heating elements, also cost of replacement.
> Every now and then, a coil burns out and needs replacement.
> This is not a problem except perhaps getting charged too much.
>
> What do you do for a glass cooktop? Can one open up the box
> and replace the heating element, whatever it is? How much does
> it cost? Or does one replace the entire top?
>
> Third, is the controls, touch or knobs. We have bad experience
> with a GE oven with touch controls. Power here is dirty. Every
> year or so the touch control gets fried and I have to replace
> it. That is pretty costly. It seems to me GE could have put in
> surge protector, but cut costs by leaving it out. The lack
> really irks me.
>
> So, I'm inclined to knobs for the cooktop rather than touch
> controls. Comments please.
>
> Fourth, from comments here it appears that lots of cooking
> ware may scratch the glass surface. Aluminum seems
> particularly bad, fortunately we don't use aluminum. What else
> should be avoided?
>
> --
> John
>

w_tom wrote:
> 'Whole house' protectors must be
> connected at service entrance and make a 'less than 10 foot'
> connection to the building's single point earth ground.

This is most interesting. "Whole house" protection sounds good.

I followed your pointers and don't fully understand them yet,
but I'll work on it.

Thanks

John

Peter Aitken wrote:

> For stir
> fry a flat bottomed carbon steel wok works fine. It'll take all the heat you
> can give it and once seasoned will not stick.

Available in a Chinese market, hopefully? Otherwise, where?

--
John

"John K. Taber" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> > For stir
> > fry a flat bottomed carbon steel wok works fine. It'll take all the heat
you
> > can give it and once seasoned will not stick.
>
> Available in a Chinese market, hopefully? Otherwise, where?
>
> --
> John
>


www.wokshop.com. I bet a google search will turn up other sources.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Any protector that could work at the range is already inside
that range. What is a honkin' big protector, adjacent to the
range, suppose to do? Will it stop, block, or absorb a
destructive surge? Good luck trying to prove any plug-in
protector claims to do that. Its one of those dirty little
lies. The manufacture quietly forget to mention how is works
or what it does. They urban myth purveyors claim a protector
adjacent to the electronics stops, blocks, filters, or absorbs
transients.

In the meantime, the plug-in protector costs what? Maybe
$15, $50, or $100 to protect one appliance? The 'whole house'
protector is effective, protects everything in the house, and
costs about $1 per protected appliance. These are damning
numbers that also are not based upon the 'stop, block, or
absorb' myth.

Paul Green wrote:
> Just a thought--Could you not ask your electrician to install a
> surge protector for the range? It would have to be pretty honkin'
> big one, considering the amount of current a range draws, but it
> might be worth it.

"w_tom" > wrote in message
...
> Any protector that could work at the range is already inside
> that range. What is a honkin' big protector, adjacent to the
> range, suppose to do? Will it stop, block, or absorb a
> destructive surge? Good luck trying to prove any plug-in
> protector claims to do that. Its one of those dirty little
> lies. The manufacture quietly forget to mention how is works
> or what it does. They urban myth purveyors claim a protector
> adjacent to the electronics stops, blocks, filters, or absorbs
> transients.
>
> In the meantime, the plug-in protector costs what? Maybe
> $15, $50, or $100 to protect one appliance? The 'whole house'
> protector is effective, protects everything in the house, and
> costs about $1 per protected appliance. These are damning
> numbers that also are not based upon the 'stop, block, or
> absorb' myth.
>

You make an awful lot of claims without a single shred of evidence. Sounds
to me like you have fallen for the propaganda of the whole house protector
manufacturers. Whole house protectors hay have their uses but in one way
they are inferior to individual protectors - they do not protect electronics
from surges that are generated inside the house.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Had you read those two discussions, they, in turn, cite
industry sources and engineering principles. You did not read
those discussions? Clearly not. Had you read them, then your
post would not be accusatory. It would contain technical
questions.

One fundamental fact. What does lightning seek? And so we
go back to Ben Franklin in 1752. Lightning seeks earth
ground. So that lightning does not find a path to earth via
the church steeple, Franklin made a shorter electrical path -
a shunt - a lightning rod connected to earth ground.
Lightning now has a better path to earth and does not damage
the church.

What does lightning seek at your building? Earth ground.
It finds a destructive path via your computer, TV, furnace
controls, or stove. How do you protect appliances? You make
a shorter electrical path - a shunt - connected from each
incoming utility wire to earth ground. Lightning now has a
better path to earth and does not damage your appliances.

Had previous discussions been read, then you would have
understood this. Technology so well proven and so inexpensive
that your telco even installs a 'whole house' protector, free,
on incoming phone line. Technology so well proven that your
CATV installer must connect his incoming wire to earth ground
before it enters the house.

Protection is only as effective as its earth ground. But
when selling very profitable (overpriced) and ineffective
(undersized and mislocated) products, then those plug-in
protector manufacturers completely avoid a discussion about
earthing. Concept well proven by professional papers even in
the 1930s. No earth ground means no effective protection for
stove controls - and everything else inside the building.
Sounds to me like you forgot to read the cited discussions
before accusing.

Peter Aitken wrote:
> You make an awful lot of claims without a single shred of evidence.
> Sounds to me like you have fallen for the propaganda of the whole
> house protector manufacturers. Whole house protectors hay have
> their uses but in one way they are inferior to individual
> protectors - they do not protect electronics from surges that
> are generated inside the house.

John K. Taber > wrote:
> I'm glad I reviewed this newsgroup before acting. I understand
> cast iron skillets are a problem, and I don't know what we
> would do without ours. We do a lot of stir fry so we need
> something that takes a lot of heat and doesn't stick.

We use cast iron skillets, and a flat bottomed wok all
the time on our glass top. No problems at all.

> We have a Lodge 10" skillet which is the most readily
> available. Any recommendations for a replacement? It shouldn't
> stick and it must take heat.

I'd keep the Lodge and not worry about it.

> replacement of heating elements, also cost of replacement.

> What do you do for a glass cooktop? Can one open up the box
> and replace the heating element, whatever it is? How much does
> it cost? Or does one replace the entire top?

I have heard that the internal elements can be replaced, but
in over 10 years we have never needed to replace one.

> Third, is the controls, touch or knobs. We have bad experience

> So, I'm inclined to knobs for the cooktop rather than touch
> controls. Comments please.

Mine has knobs. I would guess that is something you can look
for in particular models.

> Fourth, from comments here it appears that lots of cooking
> ware may scratch the glass surface. Aluminum seems
> particularly bad, fortunately we don't use aluminum. What else
> should be avoided?

Aluminum particularly bad? Huh? Aluminum is softer than
cast iron or stainless steel. Can't think of any good reason
it would be more likely to scratch a glasstop than others.

Again, we've used a glasstop for over 10 years with cast iron,
aluminum clad stainless, steel wok, etc. and nothing has put a
serious scratch in it. My wife cooks toffee and various candies
almost daily and reports of sugary spills being a problem are
exagerated in my opinion.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

In article >, > wrote:
>John K. Taber > wrote:
>> Fourth, from comments here it appears that lots of cooking
>> ware may scratch the glass surface. Aluminum seems
>> particularly bad, fortunately we don't use aluminum. What else
>> should be avoided?
>
>Aluminum particularly bad? Huh? Aluminum is softer than
>cast iron or stainless steel. Can't think of any good reason
>it would be more likely to scratch a glasstop than others.

Just a guess, but aluminum metal tends to form a protective layer
of aluminum oxide (corundum, which you normally know as sapphire
and ruby, depending on impurities) around itself, which has a
hardness of 9 on the Mohs scale (most steel is in the 5-6 range;
glass in the 6-7 range, as I recall). If the crystals were sharp,
or rough, they could easily scratch the glass top.

We recently bought a countertop induction burner (Sunpentown brand),
and we've been using that more than all four of our built-in glasstop
burners (two halogen, two coil) put together. The bummer has been
buying all that new cookware (aluminum doesn't work on induction
at all, and I'm not yet willing to shell out for All-Clad, so most
of it has been cheap carbon-steel pots).

Donald

In article >,
(Donald Tsang) wrote:

> We recently bought a countertop induction burner (Sunpentown brand),
> and we've been using that more than all four of our built-in glasstop
> burners (two halogen, two coil) put together. The bummer has been
> buying all that new cookware (aluminum doesn't work on induction
> at all, and I'm not yet willing to shell out for All-Clad, so most
> of it has been cheap carbon-steel pots).
>
> Donald

Many questions:


What specific model did you get? How many watts?

How long does it take to bring any standard volume of water of water to
a boil starting at room temperature. For example if you were boiling a
large volume of water for say pasta (4-6 quarts) how long does it take to
come to a boil?

What other tasks do you use it with and why do you prefer it to your other
devices?

I know the theoretical advantages of induction. I am just curious what
the benefits were to you as an end user.

Roland

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
. com...
> "John K. Taber" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Peter Aitken wrote:
> >
<<SNIP>>
>
> www.wokshop.com. I bet a google search will turn up other sources.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Thanks for the info Peter! I've been looking for a damn Wok Ring for 5
years now since I lost mine in a move.

Bret




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Reply at the bottom where it belongs.

"w_tom" > wrote in message
...
> Had you read those two discussions, they, in turn, cite
> industry sources and engineering principles. You did not read
> those discussions? Clearly not. Had you read them, then your
> post would not be accusatory. It would contain technical
> questions.
>
> One fundamental fact. What does lightning seek? And so we
> go back to Ben Franklin in 1752. Lightning seeks earth
> ground. So that lightning does not find a path to earth via
> the church steeple, Franklin made a shorter electrical path -
> a shunt - a lightning rod connected to earth ground.
> Lightning now has a better path to earth and does not damage
> the church.
>
> What does lightning seek at your building? Earth ground.
> It finds a destructive path via your computer, TV, furnace
> controls, or stove. How do you protect appliances? You make
> a shorter electrical path - a shunt - connected from each
> incoming utility wire to earth ground. Lightning now has a
> better path to earth and does not damage your appliances.
>
> Had previous discussions been read, then you would have
> understood this. Technology so well proven and so inexpensive
> that your telco even installs a 'whole house' protector, free,
> on incoming phone line. Technology so well proven that your
> CATV installer must connect his incoming wire to earth ground
> before it enters the house.
>
> Protection is only as effective as its earth ground. But
> when selling very profitable (overpriced) and ineffective
> (undersized and mislocated) products, then those plug-in
> protector manufacturers completely avoid a discussion about
> earthing. Concept well proven by professional papers even in
> the 1930s. No earth ground means no effective protection for
> stove controls - and everything else inside the building.
> Sounds to me like you forgot to read the cited discussions
> before accusing.
>

Thanks for the high school science lesson. Unfortunately you are overlooking
several things.

1) I never claimed that whole house protectors do not work. I did claim that
they are not the entire solution. If a surge is created by something in the
house - a furnace motor for example - they are useless. Same goes for
lightning hitting near the house - can cause a surge in the interior wiring
and the whole house protector is useless.

2) Surges and spikes do not come only from lightning as you seem to think.
Many are the result of malfunctions/outages in the power grid.

3) Individual surge protectors are grounded, through the 3rd wire, to the
house's main earth ground. This may not be quite as effective as a unit
located right at the earth ground, but to claim they do not have an earth
ground is false.



--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

1) If surges were being created by furnace, refrigerator, etc,
then we were all trooping to the hardware store to replace
dimmer switches, GFCI receptacles, and clock radios daily -
even before the PC existed. The idea that appliances create
surges is myth.

But let's assume appliances do create surges. First the
surge protector should be at the furnace and refrigerator; not
everywhere else. Why do you not advocate protectors on those
other appliances? Because those appliances really don't
create surges.

Second, surge protectors must be replaced weekly or
monthly. Charts show how surge protectors degrade. They
don't explode. They degrade. Surge protectors are designed
for events that occur typically once every eight years. They
are not designed for a surge that occurs every hour.
Especially quick to degrade would be those plug-in protectors
that have so few joules - and still cost so much money.

Third, if furnace and refrigerator are creating surges, then
those devices are destroying themselves as well as everything
else inside the building. After all, where is surge
greatest? At the device that creates it. Are you replacing
your furnace and refrigerator weekly? Of course not. Surges
from household appliances is a myth.

Clearly everything in the building is not being damaged.
This nonsense that refrigerators, furnace, et al are creating
330+ volt transients in the 120 VAC wires is classic old
wife's tale.

In the meantime, any *surge* created inside the building is
also shunted - eliminated - made redundant - by the 'whole
house' protector.

Then of course and previously stated: industry standards
such as the CBEMA have long required appliances withstand
anything that exists inside the building. Appliances already
have internal protection. Protection long proven to be
sufficient for anything created inside the building. Again.
Destructive household surges are classic myth - promoted where
people have failed to learn basic electrical principles.
Myths where people wish that appliances don't have internal
protection. Myths promoted when $0.10 parts in a magic
plug-in strip will do what the appliance manufacturer could
not.

Please do not repeat the outright lies and deception
promoted by some erroneous article in www.howstuffworks.com .

2) Whether the surge is from lightning or a malfunction of the
power grid, the 'whole house' protector addresses both. Just
another reason why the larger (properly) sized 'whole house'
protector (which also costs less money) is necessary. Yes,
another source of common mode transients is created by grid
switching. Although typically trivial compared to lightning,
it too is earthed - made redundant - by 'whole house'
protectors. Protection from lightning means all other lesser
transients also will not create damage.

3) I should not have to repeat this had you read those cited,
previous discussions. But since you did not read nor learn
the numbers, well here it is repeated. A 50 foot AC electric
wire suffers a 100 amp transients. At the far end is a
plug-in surge protector that connects that 100 amps to safety
ground wire. Will those 100 amps travel 50 feet to breaker
box, then more feet to earth? 50 feet of 12 AWG wire may be
0.2 ohms resistance. But wire is about 130 ohms impedance.
(all this posted in that previous discussion). 100 amps times
130 ohms means voltage difference between surge protector and
breaker box is something less than 13,000 volts! Will the 100
amps force itself down that now 13,000 volt wire? Of course
not. It will find other destructive paths through the stove
to earth ground.

What did the plug-in protector do? Just gave that 100 amp
surge more paths to find earth ground via the adjacent
appliance. In the meantime, induced surges are created when
that safety ground wire, bundled with all other wires, carries
the surge. The surge must not be in wires bundled with all
other wires. Otherwise we not get additional transients
called induced surges. Just another reason why the plug-in
protector is so ineffective AND why its manufacturer forgets
to mention earthing.

Anything that coould work inside a plug-in protector is
already inside appliances - including the stove. Why is that
plug-in protector going to do something that the stove
manufacturer did not already install? Just another question
to avoid if selling power strip protectors.

Why promote myths? Take the $3 power strip. Install some
$0.10 components. Sell it for $15 or $50. Tell the naive
that refrigerator and furnace are creating surges. Forget to
mention that the safety ground wire is too long to earth
anything. Avoid all mention of earthing. Forget to mention
that industry standards already put protection inside the
appliance. Promote lies and half truths among those who don't
even cite numbers (people called junk scientists). Tremendous
profits reaped by promoting ineffective plug-in protectors.
Tremendous profits are why the myths continue. Even worse,
some people will still promote plug-in protectors even when
confronted by science and the numbers.

To claim that plug-in protectors are earthed was classic
junk science reasoning. Numbers clearly say a plug-in
protector is not earthed. The plug-in protector is safety
grounded. Indicator lights on some protectors reports only if
the safety ground exists; not earth ground.

Myths such as 1) household appliances create destructive
surges, 2) somehow a grossly undersized plug-in protector will
protect the stove, and 3) that a receptacle safety ground is
an earth ground - all necessary for excessive profits selling
plug-in protectors.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Plug-in
protectors are ineffective. 'Whole house' protectors with the
essential earth ground (that meets or exceeds post 1990
National Electrical Code) is effective. A protector is only
as effective as its earth ground - which is why plug-in
protectors are better called a waste of good money and
promoted using junk science reasoning.

Need to protect that ceramic stove controls? Install a
'whole house' protector. If necessary, upgrade the building's
earth ground to post 1990 NEC requirements. Why? Protectors
are only as effective as their earth ground.


Peter Aitken wrote:
> Thanks for the high school science lesson. Unfortunately you are
> overlooking several things.
>
> 1) I never claimed that whole house protectors do not work. I did
> claim that they are not the entire solution. If a surge is created
> by something in the house - a furnace motor for example - they are
> useless. Same goes for lightning hitting near the house - can
> cause a surge in the interior wiring and the whole house protector
> is useless.
>
> 2) Surges and spikes do not come only from lightning as you seem
> to think. Many are the result of malfunctions/outages in the
> power grid.
>
> 3) Individual surge protectors are grounded, through the 3rd wire,
> to the house's main earth ground. This may not be quite as
> effective as a unit located right at the earth ground, but to
> claim they do not have an earth ground is false.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:55:15 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
> >"w_tom" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Any protector that could work at the range is already inside
> >> that range. What is a honkin' big protector, adjacent to the
> >> range, suppose to do? Will it stop, block, or absorb a
> >> destructive surge? Good luck trying to prove any plug-in
> >> protector claims to do that. Its one of those dirty little
> >> lies. The manufacture quietly forget to mention how is works
> >> or what it does. They urban myth purveyors claim a protector
> >> adjacent to the electronics stops, blocks, filters, or absorbs
> >> transients.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, the plug-in protector costs what? Maybe
> >> $15, $50, or $100 to protect one appliance? The 'whole house'
> >> protector is effective, protects everything in the house, and
> >> costs about $1 per protected appliance. These are damning
> >> numbers that also are not based upon the 'stop, block, or
> >> absorb' myth.
> >>
> >
> >You make an awful lot of claims without a single shred of evidence.
Sounds
> >to me like you have fallen for the propaganda of the whole house
protector
> >manufacturers. Whole house protectors hay have their uses but in one way
> >they are inferior to individual protectors - they do not protect
electronics
> >from surges that are generated inside the house.
>
> Tom is pretty much the laughing stock in the computer and audio groups
> with his "theories" of course YMMV.
>
> Andrew


Hmmm...somehow I am not surprised!


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message om>...
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 03 May 2004 13:55:15 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"w_tom" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> Any protector that could work at the range is already inside
> > >> that range. What is a honkin' big protector, adjacent to the
> > >> range, suppose to do? Will it stop, block, or absorb a
> > >> destructive surge? Good luck trying to prove any plug-in
> > >> protector claims to do that. Its one of those dirty little
> > >> lies. The manufacture quietly forget to mention how is works
> > >> or what it does. They urban myth purveyors claim a protector
> > >> adjacent to the electronics stops, blocks, filters, or absorbs
> > >> transients.
> > >>
> > >> In the meantime, the plug-in protector costs what? Maybe
> > >> $15, $50, or $100 to protect one appliance? The 'whole house'
> > >> protector is effective, protects everything in the house, and
> > >> costs about $1 per protected appliance. These are damning
> > >> numbers that also are not based upon the 'stop, block, or
> > >> absorb' myth.
> > >>
> > >
> > >You make an awful lot of claims without a single shred of evidence.
> Sounds
> > >to me like you have fallen for the propaganda of the whole house
> protector
> > >manufacturers. Whole house protectors hay have their uses but in one way
> > >they are inferior to individual protectors - they do not protect
> electronics
> > >from surges that are generated inside the house.
> >
> > Tom is pretty much the laughing stock in the computer and audio groups
> > with his "theories" of course YMMV.
> >
> > Andrew
>
>
> Hmmm...somehow I am not surprised!

Sheesh! Sometimes I'm amazed at the acrimony in people's voices in
some of these messages. When I ran an ISP a few years ago, I ran a
large news server and ran across all manner of nastygrams flying back
and forth between folk; just in reading some of the stuff here,
nothing's really changed, has it?

John, I'm not quite a double-E yet but have quite a few years of
experience with things electronic; you seem fixated on the 'earthing'
concept as cureall protection for everything surge related. Yes,
grounds are critical, but as elsewhere noted, the're not the whole
story. And, for your information, it is very possible that appliances
and other internal loads can create "surges". It has to do with the
fact that many homes have loads which are not very well balanced
across the three legs of the incoming supply (due to idiots who think
they're electricians, or due to homeowners who blithely add stuff to
the box thinking they're cleverly saving money by doing it
themselves). When such an imbalance exists, it is quite common to see
the effect of large inrush current being pulled into a motor, for
instance, momentarily creating a large, transient voltage drop across
one of the legs, and a coincidental surge across one of the other
legs, due to the imbalance. The voltage rise across that other leg
shows up at the other end of the wire as a "surge".

The dynamics of these kinds of surges are far different from those of
lightening-induced spikes, and typically this kind of surge really
isn't possible to protect against using the normal "surge suppressor"
devices included in power strips. I'll admit I'm probably not up on
the state of the art of surge suppressor devices, but when I was
purchasing electronics for a distributor a number of years ago, it was
quite commonly known as a dirty little secret that surge suppressor
devices silently gave their little lives to protect against a surge,
and then once silently dead, just sat there in the power strip, not
doing diddly from that point on. I suspect things haven't really
changed much on this note; power strip surge protection is still a
cruel, albeit profitable, hoax.

Just my two cents.

Anything such as load imbalances was not destroying
transistorized household equipment before PCs existed. Why
would imbalances now do damage? (BTW cooktops and residential
buildings typically do not operate on three phase power.)
Furthermore, electronic appliances typically exceeds those
'internal protection' requirements.

Take a plug-in UPS as example. In battery backup mode, this
one creates a simulated sine wave that is really two 200 volt
square waves with up to a 270 volt spike between those square
waves. Is that destructive to electronics? Of course not
because electronic equipment, such as a cooktop, is typically
so robust.

Anything created inside the house that might be considered
destructive is already made irrelevant by internal appliance
protection. Some industry standards that demand same were
provided previously. Suggest first reading those previous
newsgroup discussions. As an EE, you will be confronting
these myth purveyors quite often.

Learn what a surge protector does. Urban myth says a surge
protector sacrifices itself to protect. Fact: when the MOV
does self destruct, then it operates well outside of
manufacturer's specs. Manufacturers are quite blunt about
this. Get their datasheets. Charts are even provided to size
protectors. Explosive events occur in operation well beyond
curves on those charts - well beyond what the protector was
designed for.

Routinely, power strip protectors are so grossly undersized
as to be damaged by a surge. So another myth is promoted -
that nothing can protect from direct lightning strikes. If
not, then what is the power strip protecting from? Promoting
these myths will increase plug-in protector sales among the
technically naive.

How to increase sales. Install too few joules inside the
protector. A transient too small to damage adjacent
electronics, instead, damages the grossly undersized
protector. Then the naive recommend that ineffective
protector saying, "it sacrificed itself to save my TV".
Wrong. Internal protection protected that TV. Transient
confronted both TV and protector simultaneously (protector
does not sit between TV and incoming transient). TV had
plenty of internal protection. Power strip was so grossly
undersized as to be damaged.

The job of any surge protection system is to protect from
direct lightning strikes. Well proven and repeatedly
demonstrated since before WWII. Protection is effective when
a human never even knows the transient existed. But that
would not sell more ineffective and grossly overpriced plug-in
protectors. Yes, grossly overpriced on the order of tens of
times. Profits so large that any discussion about earthing is
avoided.

Principles so well understood that almost every paper in the
IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility of 4 Nov
1998 discusses various aspect of earthing. This, and not from
myths in the wholesaler, is where an EE learns or confirms
facts.

Typically destructive transient is common mode. Destructive
common mode transients require earthing before that wire
enters a building. Nothing new here. It is standard in
telephone exchanges, cell phone towers, commercial
broadcasting sites, and even in the grocery store. Earthing
for protection from direct lightning strikes was even standard
before WWII. Bottom line remains. No earth ground means no
effective protection.

Benchmark in this industry is Polyphaser. Do their
application notes discuss their products? Of course not.
Polyphaser (which was discussed in previous discussions) is a
benchmark. Do they discuss internally generated transients?
Of course not. Being still "wet behind the ears", you did not
immediately challenge their myth about "it sacrificed itself
to protect". Exampled is a towel to spend more time with:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_pen_home.asp

What do they discuss extensively? Not their product line.
Earth ground. A surge protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Read those previous citations that you did not
read. If that is not enough, then ask questions. Plenty more
where that came from. No earth ground means no effective
protection.

"E. Oulashin" wrote:
> ...
> John, I'm not quite a double-E yet but have quite a few years of
> experience with things electronic; you seem fixated on the
> 'earthing' concept as cureall protection for everything surge
> related. Yes, grounds are critical, but as elsewhere noted,
> the're not the whole story. And, for your information, it is
> very possible that appliances and other internal loads can
> create "surges". It has to do with the fact that many homes have
> loads which are not very well balanced across the three legs of
> the incoming supply (due to idiots who think they're electricians,
> or due to homeowners who blithely add stuff to the box thinking
> they're cleverly saving money by doing it themselves). When
> such an imbalance exists, it is quite common to see the effect of
> large inrush current being pulled into a motor, for instance,
> momentarily creating a large, transient voltage drop across
> one of the legs, and a coincidental surge across one of the
> other legs, due to the imbalance. The voltage rise across that
> other leg shows up at the other end of the wire as a "surge".
>
> The dynamics of these kinds of surges are far different from those
> of lightening-induced spikes, and typically this kind of surge
> really isn't possible to protect against using the normal "surge
> suppressor" devices included in power strips. I'll admit I'm
> probably not up on the state of the art of surge suppressor
> devices, but when I was purchasing electronics for a distributor
> a number of years ago, it was quite commonly known as a dirty
> little secret that surge suppressor devices silently gave their
> little lives to protect against a surge, and then once silently
> dead, just sat there in the power strip, not doing diddly from
> that point on. I suspect things haven't really changed much on
> this note; power strip surge protection is still a cruel, albeit
> profitable, hoax.
>
> Just my two cents.

E. Oulashin wrote:

>
> Sheesh! Sometimes I'm amazed at the acrimony in people's voices in
> some of these messages. When I ran an ISP a few years ago, I ran a
> large news server and ran across all manner of nastygrams flying back
> and forth between folk; just in reading some of the stuff here,
> nothing's really changed, has it?

And this isn't even a political newsgroup.

> John, I'm not quite a double-E yet but have quite a few years of
> experience with things electronic; you seem fixated on the 'earthing'
> concept as cureall protection for everything surge related. Yes,
> grounds are critical, but as elsewhere noted, the're not the whole
> story. And, for your information, it is very possible that appliances
> and other internal loads can create "surges". It has to do with the
> fact that many homes have loads which are not very well balanced
> across the three legs of the incoming supply (due to idiots who think
> they're electricians, or due to homeowners who blithely add stuff to
> the box thinking they're cleverly saving money by doing it
> themselves). When such an imbalance exists, it is quite common to see
> the effect of large inrush current being pulled into a motor, for
> instance, momentarily creating a large, transient voltage drop across
> one of the legs, and a coincidental surge across one of the other
> legs, due to the imbalance. The voltage rise across that other leg
> shows up at the other end of the wire as a "surge".
>
> The dynamics of these kinds of surges are far different from those of
> lightening-induced spikes, and typically this kind of surge really
> isn't possible to protect against using the normal "surge suppressor"
> devices included in power strips. I'll admit I'm probably not up on
> the state of the art of surge suppressor devices, but when I was
> purchasing electronics for a distributor a number of years ago, it was
> quite commonly known as a dirty little secret that surge suppressor
> devices silently gave their little lives to protect against a surge,
> and then once silently dead, just sat there in the power strip, not
> doing diddly from that point on. I suspect things haven't really
> changed much on this note; power strip surge protection is still a
> cruel, albeit profitable, hoax.
>
> Just my two cents.

And a good two cents it is. So far as I know nobody has
monkeyed with the original house wiring, but the home builder
does not have a good reputation, and is barred from any more
home building in my community.

Anyhow, in this part of Texas ceiling fans are much in use.
Every now and then as one is turned off, the back emf causes
an audible arc in the wall switch. You know, that could be
quite a transient surge elsewhere in the house, couldn't it?

--
John