Surge Protectors

They fail shorted. If not removed from a supply of power they may fracture.

As pointed out previously, in a plug-in suppressor the protected load may be connected across the MOV and be disconnected with a failing MOV.

If a service panel suppressor fails it leaves the appliance connected to surges ? to fend for itself.

A service panel suppressor is a good idea.

But repeating 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.

westom's religious mantra protects him from confusing thoughts - like plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Still missing - any reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still missing - answers to simple 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"?

- 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?

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

--
bud--

Ratings are good. I wouldn't buy it because I have never heard of the manufacturer. I would like to explicitly see that it is UL1449 listed. "Meets UL" is a manufacturer claim and is not the same as UL listed (UL tested). The "UL 1449 Clamping Volts" have nothing to do with UL ratings

- a red flag.

That is probably appreciated by people here, but not in general. Neither service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors protect by absorbing the surge. But they both absorb some energy in protecting.

The energy rating of a MOV - say 100 joules - is the singe event energy that can be absorbed by the MOV and put it at the defined end of life (but still functional). If the energy hits are less, say 10 joules, the cumulative energy rating will be significantly higher than 100 joules. If the energy hits are far lower, say 2 joules, the cumulative energy the MOV can absorb will be far larger than 100 joules. A very high rating means the suppressor is far less likely to fail. I don't expect my plug-in suppressors with high ratings to ever fail.

If a house has a surge current to earth of 1,000A and a quite low resistance to earth of 10 ohms the system ground will rise to 10,000V above "absolute" earth potential.

Martzloff has written "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." Make sure the phone and cable entrance protectors are connected with short wires to the ground at the power service. (Other systems, like satellite must also be connected.) If they are, the power and phone and cable wires can rise together. IMHO 'improving' the earthing is less important.

High voltage between power and phone/cable wires is likely a major cause of equipment damage.

--
bud--

That is not what your protectors do. Others can observe same. A power strip protector with the 'failed' light on still power appliances. Because the appliance is not disconnected when the protector circuit fails. A grossly undersized protector circuit disconnects as fast a possible to avoid fire. Leaves the appliance connected to the surge.

Or view pictures from Zerosurge:

They removed all MOVs. =91Failed=92 light said the protector was still good. And power was still connected to appliance receptacles. Again, protector circuits disconnected =96 and appliance remains connected to the surge.

Bud's NIST citation discusses his protectors:

work by diverting

ess if grounding

"useless if grounding is not done properly" defines protectors that bud promotes. I am kind. I only called them ineffective. The NIST calls them "useless".

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Every protection layer is only defined by THE item that does protection - earth ground. Earth one 'whole house' protector for secondary protection. Necessary even to protect protectors that bud promotes.

Also inspect your primary protection system. Again, every protection layer is only defined by the earthing:

bud will post incessently. And never provide one simple fact. Numeric specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He promotes high profit plug-in protectors. And still cannot cite even one manufacturer spec that lists protection from each type of surge. Of course not. Plug-in protectors are neither designed nor claim to provide protection from typically destructive surges. But when selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent protector parts for $25 or $150, then why tell the whole truth?

Protection - as even defined in all his citations - is only as effective as its earth ground. Page 42 Figure 8 even shows the protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a TV =96 because the protector is too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. How does his protector (hundreds of joules) absorb surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? It doesn't. So he does not post numeric specs. Will not even discuss where energy dissipates.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. How do those hundreds of joules make surges - hundreds of thousands of joules - just magically disappear? That answer is adjacent to those never provided numeric specs.

Martzloff what quite clear about what plug-in (point of connection) protectors can do to appliances. It was the very first conclusion in his 1994 paper - that discusses where energy dissipates:

objectionable difference

protective devices

What is necessary to protect plug-in protectors? What is necessary so that plug-in protectors do not make appliance damage easier? Earthing. And a 'whole house' protector properly connected short (ie ' less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground. Where is surge energy dissipated when the effective 'whole house' protector is earthed? Harmlessly outside the building. Then objectionable differences do not exist in reference voltages.

Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on plug-in protectors? They put their money where it does protection. Better earth grounds and a 'whole house' type protector that costs significantly less money. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Somehow that 1000 joules protector (that only used 333 and never more than 667 joules) will magically make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically disappear? I would say the same thing if my profit margins were that excessive.

ing? Do they drag an earthing chain?

Even his own citation contradicts what he posts. His own citaion, page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates the problem with plug-in protectors. Especially an earthed 'whole house' protector is missing. He cannot deny that. So he now wants to discuss airplanes..

Why is 'cloud to cloud' lightning relevant to protecting household appliances? It is not. Why are flying airplanes relevant? They are not. Bud's job is propaganda - to promote protectors that have no earthing. In deperation, he will discuss a flying airplane.

Where are those numeric specs that claim protection from each type of surge. Bud cannot provide them for one simple reason. They can lie all they want in a sales brochure. But they cannot lie in the numeric specs. Bud cannot present numbers that do not exist. So now he wants to discuss flying airplanes.

Read his own citations. The NIST defines bud's protectors:

t done properly.

Numerous IEEE Standards say why bud's protectors do not claim protection in their numeric specs. From the IEEE Red Book:

terception of lightning produced

hapes.

How does it divert to earth when it does not connect to earth? Does it magically make energy disappear? Diverting (connectiong, bonding, shunting, switching) a surge to earth. Then the protector does, according to the NIST:

e it can do no harm.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So bud wants to discuss airplanes to avoid reality. Where are those manufacturer specs that claim protection from each type of surge? NIST and IEEE say why bud cannot provide them. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Gee - why wouldn't telcos use plug-in suppressors for their switches? Um

- one reason may be because the switches are high amp hard wired and the thousands of phone circuits would have go through the suppressor?

The required religious mantra along with the drivel that has already been debunked. westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

But - surprise - still no reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And surprise - still missing, answers to any of the simple 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"?

- 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?

- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

- Why don?t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

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

--
bud--

Do they drag an earthing chain?

westom still refuses to explain how you can protect airplanes without an earth connection. What a surprise.

"A protector is only as effective as its earth ground."

If you could figure out how airplanes are protected you could figure out how plug-in suppressors work.

In desperation westom will ignore the question.

Each type of surge is still nonsense. And westom has never explained how common mode surges get past the neutral-ground bond required in all US services.

Just a few of the times specs have been provided:

westom will continue to lie about them just like he has every time in the past.

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.

And the IEEE surge guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in suppressors are effective.

Ho-hum - the required religious mantra.

Still no reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still missing, answers to simple 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"?

- 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?

- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

- Why don?t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

Why can't you answer simple questions westom???

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

--
bud--

With minimal reading ability westom could read in the IEEE surge guide the discussion on connecting the protected load across the MOVs. At least one, and probalby both, of the suppressors I have do that.

This is indeed a problem if there is a gang of MOV thieves operating in your neighborhood. Check with your local police.

If the village idiot was not wearing religious blinders he could read what the NIST surge guide says: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

I promote only accurate information - like the IEEE and NIST surge guides.

westom promotes his religious beliefs. Just like talking to Jehovah?s Witness.

westom will post incessantly. His belief in earthing has been challenged and cracks in his universe may develop.

Facts I have provided:

- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors.

- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"

- The NIST guide says "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

- A service panel suppressor would provide no protection in the IEEE example, page 42.

- The IEEE guide says in one example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".

- Martzloff says in a paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]".

- Dr. Mansoor supports multiport plug-in suppressors

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

- SquareD service panel suppressors do not list "each type of surge".

And the biggest fact: westom has never provided a source that agrees with him that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

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

--
bud--

Oopsies, thread over. Due to my invoking of Goodwin's Law.

Jeff

--
?Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.?
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

bingo.

I'm still amused that people really believe bogus junk surge protector power strips from china are actually made to any relevant UL rating of any sort.

you really think so?

send one over to me, I'll post a video of me dumping 1kJ into to to see what happens.

"People" - like the 6 electrical engineers that actually work at surge protection? Who say in a surge guide from the IEEE that plug-in suppressors are effective? And in a surge guide from the NIST that plug-in suppressors are effective? Do you know of more reliable sources than the IEEE and NIST?

And you still haven't admitted that UL tests the devices it lists?

Still missing - your source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective - just like westom. And westom has been looking for years.

I can only conclude that you are a Nazi.

--
bud--

You prove it. Your job is to promote plug-in protectors. You cannot even post any spec numbers that define protection from each type of surge. For good reason. To sell scam protectors, lying is normal. You have been lying for years. Even your own citations show damage to electronics because the protector is too close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

Destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules. Where does that energy dissipate? Bud says that energy just magically disappears. Reality. Either that energy dissipates harmlessly in earth - a 'whole house' protector connected within feet to earth ground. Or that energy is hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a surge earthed 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. Why? The home was using a plug-in protector promoted by Bud. The house did not earth via a 'whole house' protector. Energy was inside the building. Therefore damage.

Where does all that energy dissipate? In hundreds of request, bud never posts numeric specs that claim protection. Bud never posts those numeric specs because no plug-in protector claims effective protection. bud must deny to protect profit margins. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do. Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any. He cannot claim protection that does not exist.

Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers =96 not protection.

Uh... In the MOV?

I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally around

300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above that voltage heated up the MOV.

Am I missing something?

Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppressors. If they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said so.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hvigjf$hg7$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Ohm's Law. If the MOV conducts at a low resistance,the power it dissipates will be minimal. Thus,the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's shunted to.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In your typical plug in suppressor mounted next to the computer for example. The job of the MOV is to clamp the maximum voltage across the "protected" outlets. That it does this fairly quickly is what hopefully protect the equipment, while at the same time drawing enough current through the house wiring to either pop the fuse or circuit breaker at the suppressor or back at the service panel.

What the plug-in suppressors rely on is the impedance (generally inductive) in the house wiring to limit the rise time of the surge until the circuit breaker (or fusable parts) have time to react by opening up.

The term joules can be described as Watt Seconds. And the ability to deal with it is based on the fault (or surge) being over, or the circuit breakers upstream open before the device self destructs.

Whole house protectors work the same way in that they shunt the current to ground safely before it has a chance to cause a destructive rise to the rest of the house wiring.

Jeff

--
?Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.?
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

How low is low?

I suspect that's not a complete explanation, but I won't argue at this time.

hillarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge supression devices?

Bullshit. The Mov dissipates (Umov)*I*T, or Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds. Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time. The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting. Where did you learn about electricity?????? Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV, and that is specified in the documentation, as in how many WATTseconds blows it to pieces. Even then it still might provide protection, although only once, and then blow the mains fuse.