17 Jul
2001
17 Jul
'01
6:11 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 09:29:17PM +0100, Tony Duell wrote:
Yeah, that's what I thought; but I figured after the first one fries,
the next one is there to take the remaining part of the surge, etc.
But I guess if they fail closed-circuit, then the next one still won't
absorb much energy.
--
_______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD ecloud(a)bigfoot.com
(_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud kb7pwd(a)kb7pwd.ampr.org
__) | | \________________________________________________________________
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 07:42:15PM +0100, Tony Duell wrote:
I think what would happen is that the one that broke down first (either
because it had a lower volatage threshold, or because it was a bit
faster) would take almost all the surge. So you'd not gain much by having
them in parallel. Most consumer-grade spike proteectors seem to use
somewhat underated
MOVs. You can get higher energy ones from electronic component suppliers,
and there's no reason not to fit these. They're less likely to fail in
the future.
What about using multiple ones in parallel? I have a lot of them that