Surge protection without grounded plugs

Sep 22, 2007 25 Replies

You have assumed the only surge protector available to a layman is power strip (plug-in) type. A layman must buy multiple plug-in protectors sold by less responsible companies such as Tripplite, Belkin, APC, Monster Cable, etc. for much more money. Or a layman can purchase one effective protector sold by well respected companies. Names understood by any guy who visit electrical supply departments even in Lowes or Home Depot. Effective protector with a dedicated earth ground is sold to layman by GE, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, Square D and others.

An effective protector costs tens (maybe 100) times less money per protected appliance. That 'so expensive' plug-in protector can even contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance. No earth ground means it must earth that surge somewhere. Published is this very first conclusion in one 1996 IEEE paper:

Which one of us traced a surge destructively through a plug-in protector; earthed that surge, destructively, through adjacent computers. BTW, that plug-in protector did what its numerical specifications claim. I and this IEEE author witnessed the same problem.

Again you have assumed only one kind of surge - the one that is not typically destructive. Again, you are ignoring what the typically destructive surge seeks - earth ground. Again, you are ignoring wire impedance - or why that earthing connection must be so short. Again, where is the surge energy dissipated?

What happens if that plug-in protector grounds a surge on neutral wire? A transient is then induced on all other adjacent wires - more transients inside a building. Where is the protection? Just another reason why the plug-in solution is ineffective.

Nothing new here. What is required for surge protection was well proven even 80 years ago. The principles are based in what Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752. Protection without earthing was not effective. Ham radio operators would even disconnect antenna leads, put that connector inside a mason jar, and still suffer damage. When did the damage stop? When the antenna was earthed. Why? Effective surge protection is always about earthing surges.

Does your telco install plug-in protectors adjacent to their $multi- million switching computers? Of course not. Your telco does not waste money on ineffective and grossly expensive devices. Your telco installs protectors to be more effective AND cost less money. To make protection even better, your telco installs a better earthing system. Better earthing makes better protectors.

Jon. You claim earthing is not essential? Why is earthing THE most critical part of every protection system including your telco's surge protection? They don't shutdown for every thunderstorm. They cannot suffer surge damage. Their computer is connected to overhead wires all over town. Each thunderstorm may result in 100 surges. Why does the telco not suffer damage? Their protectors connect as short as possible to earth ground. Tto make that protection even better, a telco wants that protector up to 50 meters distant from electronics. Appreciate the separation that also makes a protector more effective.

Short to earth ground and separated from electronics means better protection. How curious. Homeowners can obtain same protection in one 'whole house' protector with proper earthing. What follows are example after example; what both professionals and experience teach.

In literally every IEEE paper on surge protection, what is always required? Earth ground. How did van der Laan and Deursen correct surge damage in a nuclear hardened, Norwegian, maritime radio station in their 1998 IEEE paper? They fixed the earthing. They corrected how protectors were earthed.

How did another construct a radio station so as to not suffer damage from direct lightning strikes?

formatting link

The NIST defines what a protector does on page 6 (Adobe page 8 of

24) .
formatting link

Another professional with decades of experience describes protection:

formatting link

Jon - how many decades ago were you building these systems; learning from experience? How many decades ago were you tracing surge damage by even replacing semiconductors to make electronics completely functional? You claim we all have been wrong all this time? You did not even know about wire impedance - why the earthing wire must be so short, no sharp bends, separated from other wires (which is why the ground or neutral wire inside Romex is not sufficient for earthing), no splices, not inside metallic conduit, etc. Why do we know about things so important for earthing? Do you even know why that wire must not be inside metallic conduit?

How many semesters did you take in Electromagnetic Wave Theory?

Jon. Again I appreciate your spirit. But your analysis completely ignores fundamental electrical concepts. Do you know why wire inside conduit makes a bad surge conductor? You did not even answer this question - where does surge energy get dissipated? If not earth, then where?

You have recommended protection from one type of transient that is made irrelevant by standard electronic designs. Where is surge energy dissipated? Earth ground is where that energy is dissipated without damage.

How did Orange Country stop surge damage to their emergency response facilities? Did they install plug-in protectors? Of course not. Orange County fixed their earthing systems - nothing more:

formatting link

Defined was a 'whole house' protector - a *secondary* protection system. What is the center of that system? Building earth ground. What is *primary* protection? A homeowner should also inspect the essential component of their *primary* protection system:

formatting link

Where surge damage is not acceptable, earthing is the one component always required for effective protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Some protection systems don't even require a protector - but always require earthing. How many examples of professionally installed solutions were provided? 15?

Of course, none of this addresses human safety problems created by unreliable wiring - an internal problem. Earthing is also important for human safety reasons as well as for transistor safety. This is about earthing to avoid externally source problems. One properly earthed protector is - by far - the most effective solution and the best solution per dollar. It is the only solution for a house with two wire receptacles.

Too many older homes are missing an earthing system - let alone one that both meets and exceeds post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. We are not discussing 100% protection. Discussed is protection that is well over 90% effective. Earthing both for transistor safety and for human safety. Even those 'scary pictures' demonstrate the pathetic nature of plug-in protectors - near zero proteciton. Don't agree? Then where does that plug-in protector's specs even claim protection from the type of surge that does damage? It does not. Those cheap plug-in protectors may even earth surges, destructively, through adjacent electronics. No earth ground means no effective protection.

Even worse, those cheap protectors cost tens of times more money per protected appliance - are more expensive as well as ineffective. The effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance. The only effective protector is the one that can earth typically destructive surges.

How many of your protector designs have been tested by direct lightning strikes? Well, show us how fifteen times over how all this is wrong. Explain the importance of wire impedance. Explain where surge energy is dissipated. Explain how to a plug-in protector stop surges from seeking eath ground. Explain why the plug-in manufacturer does not even claim protection. Explain why so many professionals are wrong. Instead, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

I appreciate what you have posted. But it is what you don't know that has led you to erroneous conclusions. One glaringly obvious problem. Where is the surge energy dissipated? Another obvious problem. Why do locating that cannot suffer damage not use the protectors you have recommended?

Of course the neutral does not earth the 100A surge. The IEEE guide has an example of how a plug-in suppressor works (beginning pdf page 40). The suppressor works by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains *earthing occurs elsewhere*. Because this violates w_?s religious belief in earthing he can?t understand the example.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Bullcrap. Plug-in suppressors work on any surge. For surges coming in on the power line, the neutral-ground bond at the service converts common mode surges into transverse mode surges anyway.

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

Perhaps educated beyond his intelligence. w_ is on a crusade against plug-in suppressors.

Reliable sources - both the IEEE and NIST guides - say plug-in suppressors are effective.

w_ has never found a link that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And w_ has never explained:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

-- bud--

What does the 1994 (not 1996) paper really say about plug-in suppressors: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 the same author wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors work.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what Martzloff says about them.

Never fly in an airplane. They do not have the required short connection to earth to protect against surges and lightning strikes. (Jon is so stupid - he thinks airplanes are safe.)

Surges that come into a house on the neutral wire are directly earthed by the neutral-ground bond in US power services. A plug-in suppressor clamps the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage on the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the equipment. The IEEE guide explains that earthing occurs elsewhere.

What a surprise! telcos don?t use plug-in suppressors to protect high amp hard wired switches with thousands of signal wires that would have to go through the suppressor.

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". and: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what the NIST guide says about them.

w_ has a fetish about tower antennas (including some other links). If you plan on erecting a 280 foot lightning rod (aka. tower antenna) in your yard and connecting it to equipment in your house this may be relevant. But not for the rest of us.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea. They may not practical for the OP because the house is probably rented.

If relying only on a service panel suppressor, make sure the phone, cable, ... entry protectors are connected with a *short* wire to the earthing wire at the power service. Without a short wire, a high voltage can develop between power and signal wires that can damage equipment connected to both. That is why the NIST guide, above, says ?No for two-link appliances?. (That does not cover all surge possibilities, like voltage from cable center conductor to shield.)

Complete nonsense.

If you count light bulbs and outlets as appliances.

The requires statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are effective.

w_ has no links in his post that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And no answers to the great questions of age:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- Why did Martzloff?s paper say ?Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution ... is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].?

-- bud--

Bud claims the protector works by clamping to nothing. Se we review page 42 Figure 8 in his own citation. A protector is adjacent to a TV. It is too far from earth ground. So it clamps? Yes, it clamps the (maybe 100 A) surge 8000 volts destructively through TV2. A surge seeks earth ground. If not clamped to earth (if clamped to nothing) then a surge will increase voltage, as necessary, to obtain earth ground. Page 42 Figure 8 - the surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV.

Bud promotes for the plug-in protector industry. His protectors don't have a dedicated earthing wire and have massive profit margins. Plug-in protectors that don't even claim to protect from a surge that typically does damage. Furthermore, his protectors cannot be used on two wire receptacles. Bud's post is completely irrelevant to the OP's question - a house with two wire receptacles.

One protector that does clamp (shunt, divert, connect) to earth is the protector also used where damage is not an option - the 'whole house' protector. That telephone line protector, installed for free on each subscriber line, also has an earthing wire. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Even Bud's citations warn about that need for proper grounding. A plug-in protector can even contribute to appliance damage - page 42 Figure 8. The OP's house does not even have safety grounds - just another reason why his ony option is one 'whole house' protector - properly earthed.

The surge seeks earth ground. A typically destructive surge destroys chimneys and church steeples - why? It seeks conductive path to earth. How did Franklin avoid that damage? He diverted electricity to earth where the energy was absorbed. What makes Franklin lightning rods so effective? Its earth ground.

A surge on AC electric wires is seeking earth ground. If not earthed before entering a building, then a path to earth may be destructive via appliances. This is the surge that damages household appliances.

Any surge between line and neutral is trivial and daily made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances.

What type of surge may overwhelm that internal appliance protection? The one that seeks earth ground. What earths that surge? A protector with a short ('less than 10 foot') connection to earth.

Meanwhile one 'whole house' protector also makes a 'line to neutral' surge irrelevant. One protector does what multiple plug-in protectors hope to accomplish. Then one 'whole house' protector also protects from a type of surge that actually does appliance damage because it is earthed.

Bud repeats what the IEEE guide says - as in the quite above. w_ can not understand because of his religious blinders.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable entry. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to damage at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power service ?ground? is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.

The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. In the illustration in the guide, pdf page 42, the guide explains earthing occurs primarily through the ?ground? wire from the cable entry block to the power service (but the wire is too long).

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.

Complete nonsense.

They are not ?my? protectors. With 2 wire receptacles there is not a good solution. Plug-in suppressors can be used with 2 wire loads. They could also be used with loads with grounding plugs but the grounds can float. The grounds will also float with service panel suppressors. The accepted practice with a grounding plug is use a GFCI receptacle. Adding a phone or cable connection makes it more likely the GFCI will trip. The best solution is to find a grounded receptacle.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea. But if you rely only on them, make sure the ?ground? wire from the phone, cable, ... entry protector makes a *short* connection to the earthing wire at the power service. If not a high voltage can develop between power and signal wires as illustrated in the IEEE guide pdf page 40. That is one reason why the NIST guide says: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

The lied repeated.

It is not the OP?s house. It is the house his son is living in. His son is likely renting. A service panel suppressor is probably not practical for a renter.

Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are effective.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing

And still no answers to the great questions of age:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- Why did Martzloff?s paper say ?Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution ... is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

bud--

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required