We had been through this before in alt.engineering.electrical. Those
who once strongly advocated 'point of use' protectors (ie ex-GE
employees) have backed off that recommendation. One example is an IEEE
paper by them about an "Upside Down House". Francois Martzloff and
Thomas Key in 1994 wrote in "Surging the Upside-Down House: Looking
into Upsetting Reference Voltages" :

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Why do those who once always advocated only 'point of use'
protectors now change their tune?

Effective protection at the appliance is already inside appliance.
If components inside 'point of use' or plug-in protectors were so
effective, then those $0.05 parts would already be inside each
appliance. Once they were installed. But since those parts (currently
inside plug-in protectors) were not effective inside appliances, then
appliance manufactures use only other well proven techniques
internally.

This internal appliance protection assumes a transient will be
earthed before entering a building. That being the purpose of a 'whole
house' protector that also costs tens of times less money per protected
appliance. If not earthed, then a transient can overwhelm protection
inside appliances. As Martzloff, et al noted, excessive voltage can
occur even "perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at
the point of connection of appliances". Martzloff was once a major
promoter of 'point of use' protectors.

Do we spend $20 to protect every appliance - or do we spend far less
money to enhance earthing? Per dollar, earthing provides major
appliance protection. Point of use protectors - if for no other reason
- cost massive dollars and provides little benefit. Again, if it were
effective, then those same parts costing so little (and selling at
exaggerated profits) would already be inside appliances. Shunt mode
protectors are only as effective as their earth ground. Plug-in
protectors have what for earthing? So instead, plug-in manufacturers
forget to mention earthing (since earthing is not provided by plug-in
protectors) AND forget to mention protection already inside appliances.
Profits are just too large to be fully honest. Protection is
earthing.... the most critical component in every protection 'system'.

How does a shunt mode protector do anything effective when it does
not shunt to earth? Manufacturer hopes we don't ask that question.
Plug-in protector manufacturers, instead, cite protection from
transients that don't typically cause damage - and hope you don't
notice. They hope you never learn why earthing is so critical -
profits being too outrageously high to be fully honest. Even those who
once only recommended 'point of use' protectors are now changing their
tune in IEEE papers - citing advantages of 'whole house' protectors -
that also cost tens of times less money per protected appliance.

Why would an objectionable voltage not exist in a ground ring? Well
repeatedly cited cinergy.com citation shows a bad, good, and ugly
solution. The prefered solution puts everything at a single point.
But the OP does not have every utility approaching a single point.
Therefore an uglier solution is useful. That solution does make the
earthing more conductive. It does provide a single point ground. It
is a major improvement over what he currently has. Others who can plan
a new house must avoid what the OP has - before footing are even
poured. What the OP currently has would explain (and may be reason
for) his many years of electronics damage. Provided is an effective
and easier solution - since utilities don't like changing services
without big buck bills.

Bud-- wrote:
An excellent paper from the IEEE on surge and lightning protection
(which came from a w_tom post) is at;
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf

Contrary to what w_tom says plug-in point-of-use surge protectors do
provide protection and are recommended in the paper above. All the
electrically interconnected apparatus, like tuner, amp, has to be
connected to the same surge protector. If there are external lines, like
cable TV, the apparatus can still be protected using a multiport plug-in
surge protector that, in addition to the power protection, has through
ports for the cable connection (and/or phone line, LAN connected to
devices not on the same surge protector, ...). Multiport surge
protectors, and how they protect, are described in the IEEE paper.

Another paper is from the NIST
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
It also recommends point-of-use plug-in surge protectors.

I agree with w_tom that single point grounding for wires entering a
building (also dish antenna) is a very good idea.

(A multiport surge protector provides a local single point ground at
protected equipment.(
,,,

Why don't you get objectionable drop through the ground ring? (Not to
say that the ring isn't a good idea.)

When you talk about a "halo ground", as for your cow, I presume you are
talking about a ground ring. The only use of "halo ground" I have seen
is as in PolyPhaser papers - a conductive ring around a room
ceiling-wall edge, that may or may not be earthed, to counter the field
effects from the down current from a lightning strike on an adjacent
antenna tower.

If cable and power entrance points are separated, it would seem like the
cable could be wired from the its entrance ground block to a 2nd ground
block adjacent to the power service entrance, with a short connection
from the 2nd ground block to the power service grounding electrode
conductor. Cable distribution to the building from the 2nd ground block.
Similarly a secondary phone protector block could be installed adjacent
to the power service. I have never seen this suggested but it seems like
a practical way to get a single point ground.

bud--