what about this, who tested these? they were wired with reverse polarity, even a $3 outlet tester would have found that:
formatting link
how about energizer branded products, were these tested:
formatting link
That's just a random sampling. These products and pretty much anything similar are the most poorly constructed and designed products ever made, next to coffee pots that lack power switches.
If you really expect some item that's about to burst into flames by just being plugged in to protect anything when there's a power surge, you must love living on the edge.
The recall is for a power strip, which is not a surge suppressor.
It was tested by ETL - maybe a reason to not buy equipment that is not tested by UL. Did ETL use the appropriate UL standard?
Wow - a recall from 2004. It also does not cover any surge related components. So what? Companies can make dumb mistakes.
How devastating - a recall from 2003. Appears to be UPS parts, not surge related parts.
The pictures of the case shows no UL label - a label should be visible.
Anecdotal evidence proves astrology and homeopathy work.
I understand now. You are afraid of electricity. Avoid the nasty electrical stuff - *any* of which may be recalled. Just move to the country, use candles and outhouse and a horse. Maybe you could become Amish.
I don't expect any listed surge suppressor to burst into flames so I guess I am not living on the edge.
UL listed suppressors made since 1998 have thermal disconnects to disconnect overheating MOVs.
None of your horrifying links have anything to do with surge protection.
The 6 electrical engineers who actually know something about surge protection and who have written 2 guides all say plug-in suppressors are effective. They don't share your paranoia (but they aren't afraid of electricity).
Where is your source that says plug-in suppressors are not effective?
And why does the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors in the only 2 examples of surge protection?
Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a protector have to be working after all tests? No. Protector can fail
- provide no protection. But if that failure does not create a fire threat, then the protector is UL Listed. UL is not about surge protection. UL is only about human safety.
And still UL Listed protector were causing house fires. So now we have UL 1449 3rd edition. More attempts to keep undersized protectors from causing house fires.
Better is to earth a properly sized protector so that even direct lightning strikes do not cause protector failure.
Do plug-in protectors do effective surge protection? Even the cited Dr Martzloff says no. Plug-in protectors, in some cases can contribute to nearby appliance damage which is what bud's IEEE brochure shows on page 42 Figure 8:
formatting link
It shows a nearby protector (located too far from earth ground) earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. UL does not care. UL's only concern is that protector does not cause a house fire.
From Dr Martzloff's 1994 IEEE paper on plug-in (point of connection) protectors - his first conclusion says a protector can even contribute to nearby appliance damage:
objectionable difference in reference
are present at the point of
What do informed homeowners do so that plug-in protectors do not cause house fires? Earth one 'whole house' protector. Then expensive Tripplite, et al plug-in protectors are protected.
westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he uses google groups to look for "surge".
As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during later tests that determine they fail safely.
So does a suppressor have to be working after *all* the tests? No. The later tests are intended to cause failure.
Does it have to successfully suppress the test surges and remain fully functional? Yes.
In westom's mind plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and service panel suppressors have mega-ratings.
In fact:
- UL listed suppressors have been tested to provide at least a floor level of protection.
- As I said previously, the amount of energy absorbed in a MOV in a plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small, even with a very strong strike to a utility pole behind a house (information from Martzloff technical papers).
- Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily and cheaply available.
UL standards are constantly changing. Where is the massive record of house fires?
westom's objection to plug-in suppressors is really based on his belief that all protection must directly involve earthing the surge. Since plug-in suppressors protect primarily by clamping, not earthing, westom cannot figure out how they work. Perhaps because his earthing belief makes him look like even more of a nut, it is almost nonexistent in this thread.
What does Martzloff really say about plug-in suppressors? Read what he wrote in the NIST surge guide: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
formatting link
If poor westom could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE surge guide says in this example:
- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection.
It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example damages the second TV.
westom forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same paper: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
At the time of the paper, 1994, multiport surge suppressors (including ports for phone and cable) were just a concept or very new. The whole point of his paper was that multiport suppressors were effective protecting, for example, TVs with both power and cable connection.
On alt.engineering.electrical, westom similarly misconstrued the views of Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff coauthor, and provoked a response from an electrical engineer: "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."
Trying to twist sources to say the opposite of what they really say is a favorite tactic.
A service panel suppressor is a good idea. But again quoting from NIST surge guide: "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 [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable 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."
A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and cable/phone wires, which the NIST surge guide suggests is the cause of most equipment damage.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides to surge protection. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective - there are none.
Simple questions that have never been answered:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
I have been thinking of putting a main surpressor in the breaker box. When I moved in the power company said there was one installed in the meter, and if I wanted to continue using it it would cost so much per month. i didn't of course, but I wonder if they really took it out. ??
I put a couple in in the old house on the telephone lines to ground on the main wooden panel after I destroyed a modem. Never had any know hits after that though.
just last week guy here said his surge surpressor exploded as a hit happened outside the house. His TV still works.
The utility suppressors I have seen are between the meter and meter box
- there is a spacer between them.
I would rather have my own service panel suppressor. The IEEE surge guide has advice for ratings and installation.
They solve many, but not all, surge problems. They are a particularly good idea in high lightning areas.
As I have said several times, the NIST surge guide suggests that most equipment damage is likely caused by high voltage between power and phone/cable wires.
In the US, telephone companies are almost always very good about installing an entrance protector that clamps the voltage on the phone wires to a ground terminal. The ground terminal needs to connect with a short wire to the ground at the electrical service. With a large surge the house ground can rise thousands of volts above absolute ground. You want all wiring - power, phone, cable, satellite - to rise together. This is stressed in the IEEE surge protection guide - very good information. A cable entry ground block also has to connect with a short wire - cable companies are not nearly as good as phone companies doing this right. And satellite entry ground blocks also have to connect to the power grounding system. Satellite installations can be even worse.
As I said previously, if you use a plug-in suppressor all external wires to a set of protected equipment need to go through the suppressor - power, phone, cable, .... This prevents high voltage between the wires to the protected equipment.
I have to recheck my cable for ground. I still have a telephone to the house unused, and an old unused Comcast phone box unused. Also the battery power supply backup which I am going to use for my house emergency lighting.
I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap. I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price. This is a basic model..................
I always thought local surpressors were good to protect from motorized equipment and keep things common mode and to ground.
I might have a lack of available breakers, and I am thinking I allready have an outlet near the box on one 120 side. i might put in another outlet on the other
120 side and use plug in replacable MOV's. I don't see much difference in using separate breakers vs protecting lines allready in use.
I wouldn't call $30 for a service panel suppressor expensive. The 2 plug-in suppressors I am using cost about $30 each. You appear to be looking for Cydrome's "cheap-o" suppressors.
The IEEE surge guide recommends - for homes - ratings of 20-70kA, or for high lightning areas 40-120kA. All the MOVs in the 2 plug-in suppressors I have are rated higher than the Grainger suppressor. I have never heard of ICM.
equipment
Motors are not a particular surge threat in a home. The #1 hazard is lighting. The #2 threat is normal and abnormal utility switching operations, including switching power factor correction capacitors. Equipment, in general, has somewhere over 600-800V immunity from surges (from Martzloff).
outlet on the other
If I am reading you right, you want to protect the service with plug-in suppressors. Bad idea. I wrote earlier that the impedance of wire at surge frequencies greatly limits the current. There is a high voltage drop along the wire. The clamp voltage at the panel will be far higher than the voltage at the suppressor. This is also an issue for panel mounted suppressors. See the section on lead length in the IEEE surge guide starting pdf page 31.
If plug-in suppressors have a very short branch circuit length to the panel they should have high ratings.
I believe at least some service panel suppressors say to wire them to existing circuits/circuit breakers.
snipped-for-privacy@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote in news:huogl7$rhq$ snipped-for-privacy@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:
I've had power supplies in TEK pro video equipment have the MOV blown apart and the line fuse blown after a lightning strike,and the PS work after replacing the fuse and MOV. I had one TSG-170A burn a hole in the PCB from the MOV failing,and after filling in the hole and a new MOV and fuse,the PS worked.
Central Florida gets a lot of lightning strikes. We're the Capital of the US in that respect.
I said I found a cheap one. I found another model with a lot higher rating. Most surpressors sold are almost $200. It seems while searching, there is a trend to upgrade to higher current ratings.
But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really high rating in Joules. ??
Normal failure mode is that as MOVs deteriorate (past the defined end of life) the voltage at which they start to conduct goes down until they conduct on 'normal' voltage. That produces heat and they go into thermal runaway and wind up as a low resistance or short. I would expect this is after (not during) a surge. The thermal disconnects required in UL1449 listed suppressors disconnect MOVs when they fail. If this is a fuse I would expect it is in close proximity to the MOV.
The IEEE surge guide shows that for plug-in suppressors, the protected load can be connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected if MOVS fail. Or the protected load can be connected to the incoming line and remain powered if the MOVs are disconnected. I want the former.
Any protector that fails means it did no protection. That failure gets the naive to recommend that protector. Undersizing the power strip protector promotes more sales.
Even MOV manufacturers list that catastrophic failure as completely unacceptable. A condition that exceed Absolute Maximum Parameters. A condition that creates these scary pictures that most every fire department has seen with so many UL listed protectors that are still too small for serious surges:
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
How does it fail? Open - sometimes explosively. A thermal fuse disconnects its protector circuit. Leave the appliance connected to that surge =96 to fend for itself. To disconnect that protector circuit as fast as possible. Then the naive recommend that protector. Failure promotes sales.
Properly sized protector connected short to earth must not fail. Earths even a direct lightning strike to earth - and remains functional. But then nobody knew a surge existed? Then the naive cannot recommend anything? That is the problem. An effective solution means nobody knows a surge existed. Because the protector did not completely fail. Therefore the naive do not recommend this superior solution =96 earthing only one =91whole house=92 protector.
Protection is always - always - about where energy dissipates. Earth one 'whole house' protector so that energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. So that even direct lightning strikes do not damage the protector. Where does energy dissipate? If permitted inside a building, then surges must hunt for earth destructively via appliances. That is why appliances are damaged. Energy finds earth destructively via that appliance. Effective protection always means that energy remains outside the building. And is absorbed harmlessly by earth.
Unfortunately, a superior protector costs about $1 per protected appliance. Does not have the obscene profit margins found in power strip protectors - that are sometimes recommended because they failed.
It is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. You should not be discussing failure open or shorted. You should be discussing why the protector - without that short connection to earth - is a fire threat. Only profit centers fail. Effective protectors do not fail during a surge. And those protectors also costs tens or 100 times less money.
How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose.
Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler- Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.
It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge - in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never provide those specs.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is also the superior solution.
snipped-for-privacy@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote in news:hur1nd$df8$ snipped-for-privacy@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:
surge protectors don't ABSORB strike energy,they shunt it to ground,providing a low resistance path to ground. Instead of the energy passing thru your equipment on it's way to ground.
A higher Joules rating means the device absorbs less than a lower rated device,and thus can divert more energy before IT blows up.
One more limit is your home wiring;how much strike energy can those lines carry? (to ground)
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.