Surge protectors?

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form the IEEE:

And also the NIST:

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

For us surges coming in on US power wires, common mode surges are converted to transverse mode by the neutral-ground bond at the service. In any case, plugin suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That covers all surge modes.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work 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. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through the suppressor (as Leonard said). Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport suppressors are described in the IEEE guide.

According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment most frequently damaged by lightning is computers with a modem connection TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV connections). All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

Another important protection element, referred to by someone else, is single point ground. The most important part of a single point ground is that phone, CATV, ... protection blocks connect with a *short* ground wire to the earthing wire at the power service. With a large surge there will always be a difference from the house ground to ?absolute? ground. The goal is for the power, CATV and phone 'grounds' to rise together. The author of the NIST guide wrote ?the impedance of the grounding system to ?true earth? is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system.?

In many houses the phone, CATV service entry are distant from the power service. The IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) provides an example of what can happen if the interconnecting wires are too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." (But another method is to run the phone wire from the entry NID to the power service area and install a

2nd NID, then distribute the phone wires from there.)

The religious belief in earthing again.

And the myth of the magic damaging surge again.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Ratings range from junk to very high.

The IEEE guide lists earthing, single point ground, power service surge suppression, and plug-in suppressors as protection elements. If I was in high lightning areas I would use them all.

It is not obvious what the Power Sentry reference to 2ms is about. A surge will be over far before 2 ms. It could be that the Power Sentry will disconnect if there is overvoltage for 2 ms. (The author of the NIST guide wrote "in fact, the major cause of TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge.")

--------------------------- I though the ground water was usually near the surface in Florida. Even if the soil is sand wouldn?t the ground water provide a good ground? (I have read other reliable sources say resistance to ground is a problem.)

-- bud--

NIST:

Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high.

Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector. Therefore it was too far from earth ground.

A surge finds earth ground. If not earthed before entering a building, then a surge may even find destructive paths through disconnected appliances. This was demonstrated even by early 20th Century Ham radio operators who would put their antenna wires even inside a mason jar. Damage to disconnected equipment still resulted. When the antenna (incoming) wire was earthed. then damage stopped. Protection means surges must be earthed before entering a building.

Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection. But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of

24) of

All appliances contain internal protection. Protection that may be overwhelmed if surges are not properly earthed before entering the building. Protection that may be overwhelmed if a protector is too close to an appliance and therefore earths that surge destructively through the appliance: Page 42 Figure 8.

A long list of responsible companies do make 'whole house' protectors that costs tens of times less money per appliance AND provide superior protection. This long list includes names that any electrically informed guy will recognize: Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, GE, Siemens. One 'whole house' protector does so much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire. These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50.

Why do plug-in promoters fear you learn what is necessary for effective protection? Let's see. Bud's protector is a $3 power strip with some $0.10 components. It is sold for $25 or $100. With profit margins that high, then it was essential for Bud to not discuss earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection.

Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point earth ground. Surge protection is secondary to profit margins. Even his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A protector simply connects a surge to protection. But a protector promoted as a magic box becomes a profit center.

NIST:

To quote the all-knowing w_ ?It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

My ?half truths? come from the IEEE and NIST. w_?s opinions come from his religious belief in earthing - with no sources.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop. 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 the 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 is too long (not a ?single point ground?). As I said in my previous post, 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 distort what the IEEE guide says about them.

Poor w_ can?t figure out that my last post covered earthing, as do both guides .

And because plug?in suppressors violate w_?s religious belief in earthing he can?t understand how they work. Repeating from my last post: ?The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work 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. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).?

The question is not about earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work.

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 distort what the NIST guide says about them.

w_ has never provided a link to the mythical $50 ?whole house protector?. Or specs for one. Yet another claim w_ can't back up with a source.

If w_ could only read and think he would have seen single point ground was a major point in my last post.

And the religious belief in earthing again.

The question is not earthing ? everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

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.

Never explained by w_:

- 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".

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. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

-- bud--

Your comments are supported by my field experience. We see lightning damaged tuners and inputs all the time. The are never connected through surge suppressors on the cable or sat line. We have hundreds of installs WITH surge suppressors that never see any damage. w_tom IS correct about them importance of grounding, up to a point. He consistently ignores the fact that clamping does not assume that ground is always the lowest potential, nor that clamping does not necessarily require earthing to be effective. MOVs just dump current when their clamping voltage is exceeded. They require a voltage difference, not an earth ground. Earthing is important, but it is not the whole story. He simply does not tell the whole story and ignores a great deal of context. He is a perfect example of how a lot of knowledge can be made useless, or even harmful, when it is misapplied.

Leonard

If better earthing is not provided, then where does a surge current go? Clamping (shunting, connecting, bonding, diverting) a surge current to single point ground is the purpose of a shunt mode protector. If that earth ground is not sufficient, how do we avoid future failure? We improve earthing.

Same was the solution to Orange County facilities in FL. They did not install plug-in protectors. They needed the problem solved. That means upgrading the earthing so that protectors shunt (clamp) surge current to earth:

Why does the telco also not use those plug-in protectors? They also know what provides the protection. Telcos are fanatical about shunting surges through properly earthed protectors. Repeat damage means that earthing system gets immediate attention. They don't waste money on an ineffective plug-in solution.

An MOV shunts surge currents when voltage to earth is exceeded - as posted. If that earthing connection is too long or if earthing is not sufficient, then surge currents will find other destructive paths. Just another reason why those without surge damage installed or upgraded the earthing system - to make the protector even better. Surges earthed where wires enter the building. It is standard procedure in every professionally installed solution.

Did I discuss other details? Of course not. Those details are not relevant to this t> Conclusion:

Do we install $25 and $100 protectors on dishwasher, bugler alarm, smoke detector, furnace, and bathroom GFCIs? These are even more important than a TV - essential to human life. What protects them? Bud recommends more plug-in protectors. So much money and so little protection - that cannot be installed on so many human safety devices. Instead we earth one 'whole house' protector for everything

- even AC powered telephone appliances (answering machine, portable phone base station, etc). And if it is not good enough, we enhance the earthing. Massively superior protection for tens of times less money.

If earth ground is not sufficient, do we spend $25 or $100 for everything - or fix the earthing? A surge that does not enter the house will not overwhelm protection even found standard in TVs. Much less expensive solution that even works for two wire receptacle (pre-1960 wired) homes.

Its w_?s tower antenna fetish. 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.

Let me see - why wouldn?t the telco use a plug-in suppressor on a high amp hard wired switch with thousands of signal wires that would have to go through a multiport suppressor?

As Leonard said in the quote above, MOVs clamp the voltage across them - they don?t care if earth is involved. The IEEE guide says plug?in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing and that earthing occurs elsewhere in the system as the electrical codes intended. In the example in the guide, earthing is primarily by the ground wire from CATV entry block to power service.

And in the example in the IEEE guide, a service panel suppressor would have provided *NO* protection.

I promote only accurate information as opposed to the drivel from w_. Find out what works and use what is appropriate. Read the sources. The IEEE guide recognizes earthing, single point ground, service panel suppressor and plug-in suppressors as effective protection components.

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

As usual w_ uses selective editing to try to make sources say the opposite of what they actually say. Pathetic what w_ will do to protect his religious belief in earthing.

I don?t recommend - I provide accurate information against w_?s disinformation. As noted previously, the NIST guide indicates computer with modem, and TV related equipment with CATV are most often damaged by surges. The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide(a computer and TV/entertainment equipment)use plug-in suppressors. Protection is always a trade-off of value of equipment protected, risk and cost of protection.

As always, w_ has no links to a source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

But both the NIST and IEEE guides say they are effective.

Never explained by w_:

- 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 say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [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. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--

Bud is reposting the same 'attack dog' myth again. The same response is one he cannot deny. But he will post this same antenna myth again and again.

Incoming utility wires are equivalent to an antenna. A lightning strike to AC electric wires down the street is a direct strike to household appliances. Those wires act just like a 280 foot antenna. Solution to avoid damage is also same.

Does not matter if the structure is a 280 foot tower, your AC electric wires, a church steeple, or even your chimney. Same solution in every case is earth ground.

What was learned in routine strikes to radio towers is then applied to homes where lightning strikes are less frequent. What Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752 is the same principle behind effective 'whole house' protectors. Plug-in protectors without earthing will somehow stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? That is what Bud claims.

Destructive surges seek earth ground. A 280 foot tower does not use plug-in protectors for the same reason they are not effective inside homes. The effective protector - inside a radio station, inside a telco switching center, inside the 911 emergency response center, inside military facilities - in each case the effective protector makes that short connection to earth. A direct strike not earthed will then use other less conductive and more destructive paths such as a wooden church steeple and/or household appliances.

One effective 'whole house' protector costs about $1 per protected appliance. Since Bud's equivalent solution is about $2000 or $3000 for plug-in protectors (that have no earth ground). Which is money better spent? The proven solution where lightning strikes 280 foot towers is also the reliable and less expensive solution.

One 'whole house' protector properly earthed means a surge will not overwhelm protection already inside appliances. Bud's own citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows what sometimes happens when a protector is too close to the TV and too far from earth ground - 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV.

Bud also will say anything to avoid these scary pictures:

Thanks to URLs provided here, we also have another example of problems with plug-in protectors from the Gaston County Fire Marshall:

or

When selling protectors that don't even claim to protect from typically destructive surges, then why properly sized them? Making them smaller caused the naive to claim "a protector sacrificed itself to save my computer". Effective protector earths surges, does so without human knowledge, and remains functional.

Bud does not promote for effective protector manufacturers. So he again posts a myth about 280 foot antennas. What had been well proven in science papers was even demonstrated by Franklin on church steeples in 1752. Everyone is strongly encouraged to review those scary pictures. Read what the Fire Marshall in Gaston County has discovered. Products that are missing an essential earthing wire so also create other problems. 'Scary pictures' of protectors more concerned with profits rather than for effective protection demonstrate a well proven principle: No earth ground means no effective protection.

Yawn.

-- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell Central Florida

The lie repeated yet again.

Still not explained - how would a service panel suppressor provide any protection?

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 required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

Also refers to a ?Thermal Cut Out ... that is intended shut the unit down overheating occurs [sic]?. Does not say there is a problem with suppressors manufactured under current UL standards. It is also not dated.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Still no links to a source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still not explained by w_:

- 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 say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

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. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

A sometimes reliable source has informed me that w_ was the author of George's old policy on global warming.

--
bud--

A widely known fire risk from plug-in protectors results in yawns from Michael. Notice how he sleeps when critical facts are discussed. No wonder he recommend Panamax protectors on cable when the cable company recommends removing them.

Yawn was for the excessively long garbage you post to hide any facts. I defy you to find any post I've made recommending "Panamax protectors on cable" because you are lying, as always.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida