Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is not available?

. Repeating: "The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere."

In the explanation in the IEEE guide "the vast majority of the incoming lightning surge current flows through the" cable entry ground wire, "and exits the house via the grounding electrode, as the NEC/CEC writers intended." .

. Repeating: "If a power line surge creates a 1,000A current to earth with a very good resistance to earth of 10 ohms, the power system ground rises

10,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. Much of the effectiveness of surge protection is keeping the power and phone and cable wires at the same potential with all of them floating up to 10,000V."

w_ is a fan of ground rods. In general 70% of the voltage drop is in the first 3 feet from the ground rod. From the ground references (and wiring)inside the building to earth over 3 feet from the rod there will be at least 7,000V. A service panel suppressor leaves surge energy still seeking earth ground. .

. Neither of the SquareD "whole house" suppressors has numbers for "each type of surge." SquareD does not even talk about different kinds of surges. How could your "responsible" company omit this critical information.

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ invents issues.

Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.

In addition, the N-G bond in US services converts common mode power line surges to transverse mode surges.

-------- Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn?t anyone agree with you w_???

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:

- 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"?

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

- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?

- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10. ? How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?

- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said?

- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 *2ed*?

- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label? Where are your answers w_???

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

--
No, it\'s seeking Neutral.

Which is all nice and good except that ohms resistance has near zero relevance. As every responsible citation notes, *impedance* is the critical factor. Whereas that neutral or ground wire via 50 feet of romex may be less than 0.2 ohms, that same wire is maybe 120 ohms impedance. Why? Wire is too long, too many splices, too many sharp bends, etc.

A 100 amp surges is trivial. A trivial 100 amp surge 'clamped' by the protector puts that protector at something less than 12,000 volts. That 12,000 volts puts all nearby TVs at risk as demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8. John =96 even 150 volts between H-N still means all wires are at something less than 12,000 volts to earth.

Both 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times discuss this in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" published 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007:

Why does that responsible sources discuss impedance? Because surge protection requires low *impedance* earthing which a plug-in protector does not provide.

arth.

)

Ground is what lightning seeks - earth ground. That protector must be bonded *low-impedance* to earth ground. Not low resistance as John Fields discuss. Low impedance which is why an earth ground for surge protection is typically 'less than 10 feet'.

Why do responsible sources discuss sharp bends, splices, and wire inside metallic conduit? None of these increase resistance - what John discusses. All drastically increase impedance. *Low impedance* (not resistance) defines effective protection.

Why do telcos do extensive construction so that every incoming wire is only feet from earth ground AND up to 50 meters separated from electronics? Again, resistance is irrelevant. Low impedance to earth ground defines surge protection. Therefore wires must be shorter to earth. High impedance (that up to 50 meter separation) further supplements protection.

Plug-in protector clamping hot wire to neutral wire leaves that surge energy still seeking earth ground. Why does the protector for TV1 cause damage to the nearby TV2 =96 Page 42 Figure 8? TV1 was protected because it was plugged into a surge protector? No. Protector clamped surge energy to nothing. So surge energy was shunted (connected) to earth destructively via TV2. It could have been anything. But TV2 was the victim of that plug-in protector and its unearthed surge. What kind of protection is that? A protector that clamps surge energy to nothing.

More reasons why plug-in protectors are not effective: if a plug-in protector was clamping surge energy into earth, then that 50 foot ground (or neutral) wire bundled with all other wires has only induced surges on other wires. Another reason why plug-in protectors can even contribute to surge damage.

John Fields discusses a low ohm DC path - resistance. But surge protection (from every responsible source) is about a low *impedance* path. What does a plug-in protector not have? A low *impedance* connection to earth and numeric specs that even claim to provide that protection.

One 'whole house' protector means protection for about $1 per household appliance. Plug-in protectors cost 25 or 150 times more and do not even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. To provide protection, wire impedance is not relevant. But every responsible source defines protection in terms of impedance. John Fields post is based on something irrelevant - wire resistance.

More drivel.. Please get off the soap!.

How many times must you recite the chapter out of what ever book it is you're doing so. If I didn't know any better, I swear you're the author of this book and trying to push it off on the rest of us.

I work in an industrial environment where we get hit on an average of

3 times each year from storms. It destroys a lot of stuff how ever, there is very little in real life events where we work that supports your theory as you have so edited.

We have equipment all over that uses MOV's or devices like it that does not depend on ground as part of the device protection. The ground is simply there connected to the chassis and cabinets to protect the user/operator. If it happens to be on a GFCI. It could trip the circuit but in that case, the device attached still gets whacked normally.

"

You use unearthed MOVs everywhere. You suffer damage from lightning

3 times a year. You call that protection? More likely, MOVs without earth ground are earthing surges destructively through equipment. Effective protection means direct strikes (25 annually atop the Empire State Building) and no damage.

If MOVs are properly installed (with the required short connection to single point earth ground), then damage occurs zero times every year. Damage three times a year is unacceptably excessive. Your industrial environment "does not depend on ground as part of the device protection." Therefore damage is acceptable? Average locations may suffer a serious surge once every seven years without damage, if protectors are properly earthed.

Jamie demonstrates why the US Air Force demands:

Lightning damage three times a year is so unacceptable as to be traceable to human failure. Properly installed 'whole house' protector with a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth is why:

Routine is a building connected to overhead wires all over town to suffer maybe 100 surges during every storm and no damage. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Jamie's protectors are not earthed. Therefore surge damage is acceptable?

--
But, what\'s important is that, at the appliance, the TVS clamps the
voltage between line and neutral to 150V regardless of the line
impedance.

Likewise, if another appliance at another outlet was protected by a
TVS then it would be irrelevant what common mode voltage existed on
either set, the voltage from line to neutral would still be limited to
150V.

You still don't get it. Voltage between line and neutral - especially if using a plug-in protector - is near zero. Typically well below what internal protection in any appliance does. Common mode voltage (whether plug-in protector exists or not) is the 8000 volts destructively across an adjacent appliance - Page 42 Figure 8. How many sources must note this because you get it? Lightning seeks earth ground. It finds a path to earth destructively via the appliance. What is that thousands of volts? While you discuss trivial hundred voltage surges that harm nothing, those thousands of volts is common mode - it seeks earth ground.

Characteristic impedance is not relevant. Why do you confuse characteristic impedance with wire impedance that is completely different? Current is in the same direction on one or all wires - seeking earth ground. Therefore characteristic impedance obviously is not relevant. Why do responsible sources that discuss surge protection not discuss characteristic impedance? It obviously is not relevant.

An MOV shunting (connecting, conducting) 150 volts between two wires means either the MOV conducts no current (because a voltage is same on both wires) or the MOV simply provides a surge more paths to find earth ground destructively via the adjacent appliance. An MOV at the appliance is for surges that typically don't overwhelm protection already inside all appliances.

Why do telcos not use your MOV solution? It does not provide protection from surges that typically cause damage AND that surge it would protect from what is also made irrelevant by the 'whole house' protector. Yes, the 'whole house' protector is protection from all types of surges. A more expensive plug-in protector protects from one type of surge that typically causes no damage.

Telcos are not into enriching plug-in protector manufacturers. Telcos need protection that works. That means a properly earthed 'whole house' protector on each incoming wire and no plug-in protectors. At what point do you claim to be smarter than telcos all over the world?

Sigh - you still don't get it. There is no responsible source citing what you have been posting. The Electrical Engineering Times articles are entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". Why do they discuss earthing and completely ignore plug- in protectors? Look at the title. EE Times does not promote popular myths. Why do those articles discuss wire impedance (which is not characteristic impedance)? Because effective protectors require low impedance earthing. How many sources need be cited before John Fields finally grasps the critical importance of low impedance earthing? Even three IEEE Standards note what provides protection from typically destructive surges - earth ground.

John Fields posts:

No John. Voltage between line and neutral is near zero as a destructive surge seeks earth ground (ie 8000 volts destructively) on one or all of those wires. To promote grossly undersized and obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors, then what is hyped to the naive? Some irrelevant hot to neutral voltage - made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances and also by a 'whole house' protector.

Protection has always been about voltage between each wire and earth. That protection also make voltage between hot and neutral trivial. Effective surge protection means protection inside every appliance is not overwhelmed. Protection not found in and not even claimed by numeric specs for $25 or $150 plug-in protectors.

John - this is not rocket science. This was implemented even 100 years ago. After 100 years they are dumb and you know better? You still don't get it. Why do telcos not do what you have posted? Effective protection is required. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Same principle even applies to lightning rods. Why do you have a problem with such well proven principles?

John Fields posted:

And view an earliest reply. Solution is not three wire receptacles. Solution is earthing the breaker box to meet and exceed post 1990 electrical code and one 'whole house' protector. Less expensive than plug-in protectors. No three wire receptacles required. Protection that is tens or 100 times less money per protected appliance. Why do you promote plug-in protectors when even the OP describes what plug-in protectors cannot be used on - two wire receptacles? Why do you keep posting what is completely irrelevant to the OP's question?

Orange County FL was suffering damage to emergency response facilities. How was surge damage eliminated? Plug-in protectors? Of course not. Emergency facilities needed protection - not a myth. Orange county fixed the reason for surge damage - earthing:

A surge protector is > But, what's important is that, at the appliance, the TVS clamps the

Ok, Another to add to my black list.

--
"I\'d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

"Daily Thought:

  SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT
  THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:10 -0700 (PDT), w_tom wrote:

--
Nothing of any consequence.

Yup, yer a loon...

JF

So John, where is any professional citation that says characteristic impedance is relevant? Nothing.

Where is this professional citation that says common mode surges - what lightning creates - are not typically destructive surges? Nothing.

Where is this professional citation that says a hot to neutral surge is not eliminated (reduced) by that same one 'whole house' protector? Nothing.

Why is a peer reviewed front page article in a highly regarded electrical engineering publication not relevant? Its title: "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". John somehow knows industry professionals are wrong?

You have even confused characteristic impedance with wire impedance. Why do you ignore wire impedance and discuss irrelevant wire resistance? Your denials are based only in insults?

Why does every telco install 'whole house' protectors and not waste money on plug-in protectors? For better protection, why do telcos locate protectors distant from electronics - up to 50 meters? For better protection, why do telcos install even better earthing and connect 'whole house' protectors as short as practicable to that earthing? John says telcos are also loony?

And where is that plug-in protector spec that claims protection? Oh. No plug-in protector will list protection from each type of surge. But you know that plug-in protector is effective?

Where does John Fields post a solution for the OP whose building only has two wire receptacles? You provide no useful answers.

OP's solution is simple, more effective, and less expensive than plug-in protectors. Similar to a solution implemented by all telcos, commercial broadcasters, rocket launch facilities, and military bases. A 'whole house' protector with breaker box earthing is upgraded to post 1990 National Electrical Code standards. Complete surge protection installed for about $1 per protected appliance.

Why does John Fields recommend using three wire power strip protectors on two wire receptacles? How do John's insults prove science or assist the OP? John even denies lightning creates common mode surges. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as noted by numerous above and responsible sources. Meanwhile, the OP cannot use plug-in protectors. His best solution is the standard solution used everywhere when surge damage is not acceptable.

Give it a rest. You aren't fooling anyone, You have never had anyone agree with any of your lies or idiocy, so go away.

--

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in your account:

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming' sheep.

--
Well, I see from your outburst that you\'ve been confounded by my
excellent ASCII art schematics and my lucid explanation of why and how
two-wire plug-in TVS-based surge suppressors can be used to good
advantage in premises without (or with unused) earth grounding.

That is, after all, the topic as indicated by the subject line.

If you\'d like to discuss whole-house surge protection I suggest you
start another thread with a subject which reflects that topic

I also realize from your questions (which you pose as sarcastic
challenges) that you don\'t understand the subject matter involved and
hope that I\'ll "vindicate" myself by coming back with answers which
you can then study up on and pretend you knew them all along, as
you\'ve done with "common mode" and "characteristic impedance".

Sorry, Charlie, I don\'t play that way.

JF

Every responsible source says the grounding must exist. No surge protection stops or absorbs the common mode surge - surge that typically causes appliance damage. As Bud's NIST states:

*Diverting*. Your ASCII protector has all but no earth ground. Excessive wire impedance. Nothing to divert to. Protector is the same problem demonstrated in Bud's other citation. Page 42 Figure 8 - a protector too far from earth ground and too close to appliances therefore leaves surge energy earthed 8000 volts destructivley through an adjacent TV.

No way around what a protector does. Either it stops (absorbs) surge energy OR is diverts (shunts, connects, clamps) that surge energy into earth. A destructive surge will increase voltage. as necessary, to connect to earth - Page 42 Figure 8. Stopping (absorbing) surge energy is not effective protection. Your ASCII circuit protector with excessive wire impedance must absorb all surge energy (impossible) or divert a surge destructively via household appliances - Page 42 Figure 8.

The OP need not rewire the house. But no way around what provides effective protection. As every responsible source notes, that service entrance earth ground must exist for the same reasons earthing exists in every telco facility. One 'whole house' protector means everything is protected. Protection that your ASCII circuit does not provide.

As even Sun Microsystems notes in their Planning guide for Sun Server room:

Who should the OP believe? John Fields? Or Sun Microsystems ... and the IEEE, NIST, US Air Force, QST (the ARRL), Dr Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times, Schmidt Consulting, Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a station engineer from WXIA-TV, ...

Even Martzloff describes what would happen with your ASCII circuit:

An MOV protects by becoming more conductive? What happens when a surge protector has even higher joules numbers? Then the protector absorbs even less surge energy. A better protector (higher joules) absorbs less surge energy - what is desirable. MOVs don't protect by absorbing surges - which is why a Wikipedia citation on joules was irrelevant. MOVs protect by diverting energy elsewhere - earth ground.

John do you really believe a hundred joules in a UPS or power strip will stop (by absorbing) lightning energy? Do you know how tiny 200 joules is? Where is protection from a 200 joule MOV?

Both wire and MOVs absorb some energy while shunted massive energy elsewhere. A 200 joule protector is expected to shunt maybe 2000 or

50,000 joules into earth (20,000 amps) Whereas the MOV may absorb 200 joules, earth must dissipate thousands of joules. Better protectors work more like wires - shunting more energy while dissipating even less - or why your Wikipedia citation makes no sense.

What is wrong with ASCII diagrams? First, you promote wire resistance that is irrelevant. Your 14 AWG wire at 0.15 ohms resistance is also something like 130 ohms impedance. (Not characteristic impedance with is something completely different).

Second, your 1000 volts surge at a transformer is made completely irrelevant by protection required inside all computers. All computers are required to withstand 1000 volt transients. Many have internal protection that means even higher voltages without damage. That transformer surge voltage will be lower at appliances. No problem. Electronics routinely withstand 600 volt transients without damage - a standard from 1970.

Third, surges are current events - not voltage. Tiny surges are 100 amps (not 8 amps). Serious surges are thousands of amps. Effective 'whole house' protectors must earth tens of thousands of amps so that voltages at all appliances remain below 600 volts. Again, why high reliable facilities use 'whole house' protectors and don't use your point of use protection.

Fourth, any attempt to stop or absorb surge energy means voltages rise as much as necessary to blow through that blockage. Voltage will rise as high as necessary to connect that current to earth. Lightning makes the most non-conductive material (air) into miles of conductor. Nothing stops (absorbs) the typically destructive surge that seeks earth ground. Effective protection *diverts* surges to earth on non- destructive paths. Which does your ASCII protector do? Divert that energy into earth or absorb it. Which one? Surge protection is about earthing (diverting) before surge energy can enter a building.

Fifth, if a designer who used MOVs, then you would have accurate numbers. One milliamp through your 150v MOV puts it at just above

200 volts. Your 150 volt MOV does not conduct at 150 volts. Serious surge currents start with the 150 volt MOV at around 300 volts. John Fields - your ASCII circuit description violates every number in this paragraph. No MOV is installed to keep appliance voltage at 150 volts as you posted. You would know that had you designed protectors and studied V-I charts for MOVs. You don't even know how MOVs work.

Sixth - clamping the hot and neutral wire means surge energy remains on both wires - unclamped - still seeking earth ground. Assume all 8 amps of a near zero (non-destructive) surge used the neutral wire to obtain earth: that protector is at maybe 540 volts (not 150 volts). A nondestructive surge because an 8 amp surge is too trivial to overwhelm protection typically in all electronics. Your circuit only works for a type of surge that typically does not do damage AND fails

- provides no protection - for the type of surge that does cause appliance damage. A destructive surge means energy remains on that hot and neutral wire, still seeking earth ground, and maybe finding earth 8000 volts destructively via some appliance. Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates this.

Your ASCII circuit protects from a surge (measured in voltage) that is not destructive, has trivial energy, made further irrelevant by one 'whole house' protector, and that does not represent what effective protectors are designed to eliminate. Destructive surges are not a trivial 8 amps and defined by wire resistance. Your 150v MOV does not clamp at 150 volts. Your example even demonstrates no knowledge of MOV datasheets. Numerous additional technical problems with your ASCII circuit. John - you don't even know the V-I curves for MOVs. You have never designed this stuff let alone test it.

Why do telcos not use your ASCII circuit? Telcos have the exact same surge problem AND must never suffer surge damage. Same problem and solution applies to every high reliability facility. To avoid how surge protection works, you simply pretend telcos don't suffer surges? Nonsense. I designed this stuff that was tested by direct lightning strikes. You clearly never did design (as demonstrated by your 150v MOV conducting current at 150 volts). Protection now required in every home is how ham radio operators did it 80 years ago. Your protection circuit violated what hams knew 80 years ago.

What you should have known. That 150v MOV has 150 volts across it when conducting how much current? Less than 1 milliamp. Why did you not know what every protector designer would know? Take a 200 joule MOV (V151CA32). What is that 150v MOV voltage when conducting an 8 amp surge? About 360 volts (not 150 volts). Why am I quoting from a V-I chart that you clearly never read? How do you know what that MOV does when you assume rather than read datasheets? That is the point. Worse. John - you still discuss what is irrelevant (wire resistance) and ignore what responsible engineering sources discuss (wire impedance).

How critical is wire impedance? Manufacturers even define wire impedance in that two inch MOV lead for test purposes. Where a tester connects to an MOV's leads changes MOV electrical responses. Why? Wire impedance (not wire resistance) is important even in manufacturer application notes. To post accurately, John would also know this:

Just another source that demonstrates wire impedance - not resistance

- for protection. Even inductance in MOV wire leads can degrade protection because impedance (not resistance) is the critical parameter.

John, your ASCII circuit cites wire resistance which is irrelevant (as so many sources state) AND demonstrates design ignorance of how MOVs work. You don't even know MOV voltage when conducting a trivial

8 amps. Glaring, obvious, and unacceptable mistakes in your ASCII circuit. A mistake that exists due to no protector design experience.

Protection is about earthing. The effective protector must make a short (low impedance) connection to earth - as every responsible source says and John denies. Voltages between wires is trivial. Voltages (and more important - current) between each wire and earth defines surge protection. One effective protector means earthing even ten thousand amps to earth - without damage.

John - I only listed simplest mistakes in your ASCII protector circuit. More exist. But you don't even know the most basic numbers or a V-I chart for MOVs. You still confuse irrelevant resistance with what so many other sources discuss? Wire impedance.

Why do sharp bends cause further compromise surge protection? Sharp bends don't affect wire resistance and increases wire impedance. So why do you still discuss resistance?

---

Regardless of what your "responsible" sources say, situations exist where grounding is impossible and the subject line of this thread:

"Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is not available?"

should indicate to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that it asks for solutions for surge protection where no ground is available.

Your inane insistence on quoting references which require a ground is, therefore, not only off topic but also stupid.

As I suggested earlier, if you want to discuss whole house protection where earth grounding is available you would do well to start a new thread addressing that topic.

Otherwise, perhaps you'd care to grace us with some on-topic solutions or, at the very least, since you seem to be so intent on proving me wrong, a technical refutation of my position with respect to the subject at hand.

JF

John, _wacko_ tom has been trolling this same crap for years. He doesn't want answers, he wants to argue.

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth\'s aluminum foil beanie for the \'global warming\'
sheep.

--
That\'s fine with me!

It\'s a slow day and I don\'t mind slapping the likes of him around at
all!   :-)

JF

. Never explained - how does a common mode surge on incoming power lines get past the N-G bond required in all US services.

And neither service panel or plug-in suppressors protect by "stopping" or "absorbing". .

. What does the NIST guide really say? Plug-in suppressors are the "easiest solution". .

. 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." What a radical idea. .

. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The guide explains they do not work primarily by earthing. And they certainly do not work by stopping or absorbing. .

. The OP should believe the IEEE and NIST. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. .

. w_?s religious blinders prevent him from understanding how plug-in suppressors work. It is not by stopping or absorbing.

And repeating: "Because of arc-over and branch circuit impedance to surges, surprisingly little surge current can reach a plug-in suppressor. That means surprisingly little energy can reach a plug-in suppressor."

One-hundred Joules is a red herring. Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily available at low cost.. .

. Provide that standard. .

. The IEEE guide explains that for plug-in suppressors, earthing occurs elsewhere in the system, not primarily through the suppressor.

Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Why doesn?t anyone on a science newsgroup agree with you w_???

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:

- 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"?

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

- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?

- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." ? How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".

- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?

- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s own hanford link said?

- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said was UL1449 *2ed*?

- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?

Why no answers w_???

--
bud--

No equipment grounding is available at OP's receptacles. That is code acceptable. Not acceptable would be a missing earth ground at breaker box. Breaker box ground must be installed to have any surge protection (transistor safety) AND must exist to meet code requirements for human safety. No way around that necessary earth ground.

John, your ASCII diagrams were lucid. You did try to explain how you thought surge protection works. But again, you did not even know how MOVs perform and your calculation were for wire resistance. As a result, what you thought was a potentially destructive surge - 8 amps

- is considered so trivial as to be made irrelevant by protection already inside all appliances. Your calculations for 0.15 ohm resistance (14 AWG wire) should have been using 130 ohms impedance for that same wire.

Surge protecction is installed to earth 'tens of thousand' amp surges without damage. Earth before surges can enter a building so that protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Routine is a direct lightning strike to incoming utility wires without damage. After all, telcos will suffer maybe 100 such surges during every thunderstorm - without Central Office damage. To have no damage, all telco COs use 'whole house' protectors and an even better earth ground. What makes the protector even better? Better earthing.

Even Bell System papers in the 1950s (before transistors existed) would discuss this surge threat. OP's solution is the equivalent solution found in transistorized COs today. Posted was a simplest solution even for the OP and his 1950 vintage wiring - that also costs less money.

No reason (for protection or for code requirements) to install safety ground on any AC receptacles. Earthing electrode (required for code requirements and surge protection) is essential for the protection that the OP requests. No way around that necessary earthing electrode and a short connection to one 'whole house' protector.

Either the OP has only two wire receptacles and no protection (even if using plug-in protectors). Or he has two wire receptacles, code required earthing, one 'whole house' protector - and effective protection. Those are his options.

As every responsible source notes, protection means:

OR

Protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Bud routinely repeats same allegations hoping that a lurker will forget those answers were provided repeatedly. Yes, an AC electric neutral wire is connected to breaker box earthing. A surge does not enter on neutral wire. Both hot wires connect surges directly to household appliances without any connection to earth. How are both hot wires earthed and still provide electricity to appliances? The

100 year old solution: one 'whole house' protector connects each hot wire to earth ground.

A protector acts like a switch: closes (connects) each hot wire to earth ground only during surges. Now surge energy on all three AC electric wires is earthed before entering a building. Earth is where surge energy must be harmlessly dissipated. Then protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. A protector within feet of earth ground AND well separated from appliances provides best protection - and for less money.

The IEEE guide says a plug-in protector will clamp to itself =96 also called clamping to nothing. Surge energy remains; still seeking a path to earth. IEEE guide also says plug-in protectors are an easiest solution. What did Bud forget to mention? The easy solution can create appliance damage. Page 42 Figure 8. IEEE guide shows why the easiest solution may contribute to appliance damage. When an 'easy' protector is too far from earth ground and too close to appliances, then an 8000 volt surge destroyed an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. That energy must be earthed OR that energy will find destructive paths to earth maybe via household appliances.

If you learn this, then profits diminish.

Both Bud citations, and Sun Microsystems, many IEEE Standards (IEEE Red Book, Green Book, Emerald Book), US Air Force, QST (the ARRL), Dr Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times, Schmidt Consulting, Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a station engineer from WXIA-TV, Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down house ... in every case, effective protectors have a short and dedicated connection to single point earth ground. One 'whole house' protector is not 100% protection. From the IEEE Standard:

Why would anyone waste $25 or $150 per appliance on protectors that may contribute to adjacent appliance damage? Even with plug-in protectors, a 'whole house' protector is still necessary. Bud is quick to define an "easiest solution" that provide profits. Bud forgets what the IEEE demonstrates =96 the =93easiest solution=94 can also make appliance damage possible =96 Page 42 Figure 8.

Bud still does not provide plug-in protector numeric specs that claim protection. An "easiest solution" does not protect from surges that typically damage appliances. Did Bud again forget to post those manufacturer numeric specs? Bud again refuses to post what does not exist. Plug-in protectors =96 the =93easiest solution=94 - do not claim such protection in numeric specs. Did Bud also forget to mention that part?

Bud even forgot what earths all three AC wires so that surges need not damage any appliance. One properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Bud does conveniently forget things that don't promote plug-in protectors. Bud also forgets that a protector is only as effective as its earth ground - where surge energy must be diverted.