In a message dated 6/19/2002, Dave Hutchins writes:
> Energy has nothing to do with the capability of the TVS device. It is also > proven that the energy in the transient threat is not the energy dissipated > in the TVS component, just ask any old timer even those at Harris. Hi Dave: I'm not sure I agree with you on this one, but perhaps the issue is simply one of semantics. The "energy" I referred to was the energy in the surge, not the protection device. For example, a gas tube can handle, without damage, surges of far higher energy than a Transzorb. If I recall correctly, MOVs can also typically handle surges of higher energy than a Transzorb. In the past, when I have used a Transzorb or comparable device, it was for tertiary protection inside a circuit that was already protected by other devices with the ability to handle much higher energy surges. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
