Inline Electric Timer Switch

As I have written a couple times, published research by the NIST surge expert found that with the maximum surge with any reasonable probability of occurring on power service wires, the energy absorbed at a plug-in suppressor on a branch circuit was 35J. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less.

The MOV energy rating is for a single event that puts the MOV at its defined end of life (but still functional). If the energy hits are much smaller, the cumulative energy rating is much higher. For example a MOV might have a (single event) rating of 1,000 J. If the individual hits are 14 J the cumulative energy rating might be 13,000 J. High ratings give a much longer life.

The Belkin suppressor I looked at has a rating of 1045 J.

As I wrote previously, a UL listed suppressor will disconnect the protected load if the MOVs fail and are disconnected (or inform you that they don't) (IEEE guide pg. 38).

And the NIST surge expert has written: "in fact, the major cause of [surge protector] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge." An example of overvoltage is crossed distribution and secondary wires. MOVs can handle thousands of surge amps for the microseconds duration of a surge but are rapidly burned out by much longer lasting "overvoltage".

Among the UL tests is that suppressors fail safely (thermal fuses).

As I wrote in one of my first posts: "When using a plug-in surge suppressor all wires (power and signal) to a set of protected equipment needs to go through the suppressor. The voltage on all wires is clamped to the ground at the suppressor." (An example (pg 31f) shows protection from a surge entering on the cable service.) If signal wires do not go through the suppressor, the suppressor can actually cause damage,

It is one of the major points made in the IEEE surge guide (for those who can read).

Because it is a major cause of damage avoiding different potentials is a major subject of the IEEE guide.

For science based information on surge protection read the IEEE surge guide

So what?

I have yet to see any commercial surge supressors with a history of working well slap any NIST reference on the sell sheet. Nobody cares about your random NIST paper from 1988.

I'd love to see that thing try to deal with 1045J.

Why are you mixing and matching UL listings, with no numbers or categories with IEEE guides? This makes no sense.

Whatever this claim is, it sure sounds stupid. I'd love to hear more about distribution and secondary wires and how to cross them for microseconds, harmlessly.

Can you cite the NIST paper or IEEE publications used in this UL test?

It sounds like you missed the IEEE and NIST publications on ground loops. Better head back to the library.

The NIST surge expert was François Martzloff. I have read at least 40 papers written by, or partly by Martzloff. At least half were published by the IEEE. You may not have heard of it.

Martzloff papers have also been published by the IEC

I have no idea what the "random NIST paper from 1988" is.

I am interested in reading your published papers.

With minimal reading ability you would see that the IEEE guide refers to the UL standard.

And you may not be familiar with referencing different sources (as is done in footnotes).

The UL standard for surge protection is UL1449, as I have written. I am sure that will be very helpful to you.

With minimal reading ability you would have understood primary and secondary wires were not crossed for microseconds. That is the whole point of TOV.

I have not written about any NIST papers.

UL test procedures do not cite NIST or IEEE publications.

(Not that the question makes any sense anyway.)

A non-answer. Small currents to earthing electrodes do not cause surges. Surges, thousands of amps, can cause thousands of volts between an electrical system "ground" and earth 40 ft. from the earthing electrode.

You are skilled at posts saying nothing.

For real science on surge protection read the IEEE surge guide

I don't publish papers, I solve real problems. Some of my sources include the designer of surge supressors for commercial use, including remote towers for radio relays. I trust him and his decades of real experience over martzloff and his recycled book reports. The products he designed are still in production by emerson electric.

So we're supposed to chase after IEEE guide to UL standards which you use in place of the UL standard itself? I can sort of understand why ground loops just don't register with you at all.

So dollar sure surge arrestors work great, but only in improbable scenarios?

Your academic, delusional world of UL stickers and mass produced publications don't take into account the real world and how things actually work.

The reality is all a UL sticker on a power strip means is somebody faked it, or somebody payed a fee. Testing of most products isn't even needed.

Nobody has your back when a dollar store power strip catches on fire. Atrocious products like christmas tree light can carry a UL tag. It doesn't make them safe or fault-proof by any measure.

'dollar' isn't the important quality in a surge arrestor. A burned-out spark plug is an excellent surge arrestor, albeit somewhat messy, and you can have some of mine for a dime.

That's just snark; academics aside, UL certification is backed by insurance companies (the "U" stands for 'Underwriters') who are completely grounded in reality. Their reality doesn't require, however, that all devices survive lightning strikes and function for decades.

A product for market will always have some formal requirements for safety, and it is in a manufacturer's best interest to pay close attention to those, and only those, requirements. It's safety, not durability, that tops their list of concerns.

That's a good thing.

You are quite delusional if you think safety is of any concern for even half of consumer products being made.