Bud-- wrote:
Hot damn - actual links!!!

When it comes to 'as usuals', still not provided are references
that say "plug-in surge suppressors are effecive". No reason is
provided for plug-in protectors to be effective. Equipotential is
only one requirements for effective protection. Equipotential alone
somehow makes plug-in protectors effective? No possible.

Where concepts behind a unique type of plug-in protector is cited
(multiport SRE), still the author instead recommends 'whole house'
protection. Where other citations only show where a plug-in protector
exist, no proof or claim that the plug-in protectors are effective. In
fact, anything that a plug-in protector might do effectively is already
inside the appliance.

Meanwhile other responsibile sources repeatedly cite what is
necessary for protection - earthing. What does that plug-in protector
not provide? Earthing. Why are other highly regarded sources such as
Polyphaser not discussing plug-in protectors? Polyphaser's application
notes discuss effective solutions that provide both 'equipotential' AND
'conductivity to earth'. Both are required. Plug-in protectors do
not provide both which is why plug-in protector manufacturers do not
discuss earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Provided are days worth of reading that promote effective 'whole house'
techniques - both in theory and in practical experience.


To lightning, a commercial radio tower, a utility AC street wire,
television antenna, telco central office, or household appliances are
same. All are paths to earth that may be destructive or made trivial.
Protection is about earthing. Protector - be it a Franklin lightning
rod or a 'whole house' protector - is about connecting a transient
short to earth ground. So much research on how to protect is performed
on transmitter buildings, telephone central offices, etc - same
research subjects mocked by Bud hoping the lurker will believe insults
rather than technical citations.

What does a Surge Reference Equalizers paper claim?
High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
service entrance of the premises. While such a
protection is not mandated at present, trends
indicate growing interest in this type of surge
protection.

Even after studying SREs, earthed 'whole house' protector is cited as
a 'best' solution. So where does anyone make responsible claims for
this SRE plug-in protector? Instead, responsible sources repeatedly
cite earthing as critical to protection - even after discussing merits
of SRE. What does an SRE multiport protector not provide? Earthing.
Each example of effective protection lists no plug-in (point of use)
protectors. Of course. Even the multiport SRE protector had no
effective earthing - which explains why that paper then recommends
earthed 'whole house' protection.

In a previous discussion, Bud apparently did not read an IEEE Green
Book (IEEE 142) quote entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. Complete protection can be
provided only by enclosing the object in a complete metal
encapsulation. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

We protect by intercepting or diverting to what lightning seeks -
earth ground. Where is that multiport (plug-in protector) solution
even mentioned? With no effective earthing, then how then can a
plug-in protector be effective? Question that Bud avoids answering.

So tell me again how this multiport plug-in protector intercepts or
diverts? Where are the two functions of protection - equipotential and
conductivity - provided by that plug-in protector? How does a plug-in
protector that costs tens of times more money per protected appliance
somehow out perform well proven 'whole house' techniques? How does it
provide equipotential when the room violates what is necessary for
equipotential? Three more questions that demonstrate why an earthed
'whole house' solution, instead, was advocated.

Martzloff, et al noted that plug-in protectors may even contribute to
damage:
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.

To deny all this, and in response to a first citation, Bud says:
I have previously said that Ufer grounds are a lot better than ground
rods. I am on record as for them. Not relevant to surge suppressors.

Not relevant? Earthing defines effective protection as even
described by IEEE Green Book. Why claim grounding is "not relevant to
surge suppressors"? Hundreds of citations note earthing as essential.
An abridged summary list was posted on 30 Mar 2005 in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA

Then we have this backtracking:
For those of us who don't expect to protect from a direct
lighting strike a Surge Reference Equalizer will work.

Why waste money on a SRE type plug-in protector? Protection inside
appliances already makes trivial transients irrelevant. Why install
protection for something that does no damage? Damage is typically
created by direct strikes that overwhelm protection already inside
appliances. Direct strikes to a tall tower, or to utility wires down
the street, or even from GPR due to a nearby struck tree. All can be
direct lightning strikes to household electronics. Do we spend $20 or
$80 for each household appliance - spending thousands of dollars? Of
course not. Instead, spend about $1 per appliance for an effective,
well proven, residential 'whole house' protector. A solution
demonstrated in transmitter tower sites, server rooms, telephone
switches, airports, and military bases.

Where are these responsible industry professionals who put a multiport
protector in a room - and claim effective protection? None have been
cited. Meanwhile a paper on the Upside Down house says:
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.

Same author who recommends 'whole house' protectors in your cited
paper on SRE (point of use or plug-in) protectors also says plug-in
protectors may even contribute to damage. Yes, we demonstrated same by
tracing how a transient entered and left a computer network. A plug-in
protector provided more destructive paths through a computer -
contributed to damage. Since that shunt mode protector provides no
earthing, then a surge must go somewhere - such as destructively
through an adjacent computer.

We learned about protection from transmitter sites and other high
tech facilities. Where was early protection research conducted? On
the Empire State Building during lighting strikes to transmitters.
Lessons there proved how to best protect even homes. So why mock
technical papers from those locations? Best knowledge for household
protection comes from those commercial venues - as so repeatedly
demonstrated by reams of citations.

Shame on Bud for totally misrepresenting what Polyphaser said.
Polyphaser - a highly respected industry standard - is not recommending
an equipotential solution from a SRE type, plug-in protector. Claiming
that Polyphaser supports SRE claims means Polyphaser's paper was not
read:
The protection on each of the l/O's at the building entrance
is good practice and has the advantage of keeping the strike
energy toward the outside of the building and away from the
transmitter.

What was misrepresented as Surge Reference Equalizers (SRE) is
actually 'whole house' protection. Polyphaser does not recommend
ineffective solutions. SRE is protection only using 'equipotential' -
ineffective. Polyphaser discusses protection using 'equipotential' AND
'conductivity'. Effective solution is also called 'whole house'
protection.

The protector will shunt the majority of the strike energy to the earth ground.

How does one completely misrepresent that Polyphaser statement?
Polyphaser states 'shunt' and 'earth ground'. 'Whole house' solution
could not be more obvious. Meanwhile Polyphaser defines additional
criteria for protection:
Another complication in this scenario is the inductance of the
conductor between the I/O protector and the ground system.
The inductance will determine how much of the strike energy
is conducted into the ground system.

And again, connection to earth must be short - ie 'less than 10
feet'. What connection to earth is provided by a multiport, SRE,
plug-in protector? Oh. Earthing is not even mentioned until his paper
then recommends a different 'best' 'whole house' solution. A
solution that provides both equipotential and conductivity to earth is
not SRE advocated by Bud. Plug-in protectors remain unproven, are
demonstrated ineffective, and can even contribute to adjacent
transistor damage.

Another source: IEEE Red Book (Std 141) also recommends protection:
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.

So where is this 'point of use' or plug-in solution recommended? As
with all responsible citations for effective protection, earthing - not
some multiport plug-in protector - is constantly recommended and
discussed. How do we protect homes? We learn from radio transmitter
stations, telephone switching office, emergency response centers,
maritime communication stations, server rooms, and all those other
facilities that were mocked instead of learned; that cannot suffer
surge damage.

Finally Montandon and Rubinstein wrote a 4 Nov 1998 IEEE paper
entitled "Some Observation on the Protection of Buildings Against the
Induced Effects of Lightning". A direct strike to a building can
create induced effects inside that building:
Equipotential is a technique used to reduce potential
differences between different point, be it within a
building, on a printed circuit board ... The idea is to
establish a "low impedance" path between the points
whose potential is to be equalized. The connection,
called the equipotentialization network, is made using
either wires or metallic grids.

As usual when demonstrating protection even for homes, Montandon and
Rubinstein use a telecommunication building with adjacent antenna
towers. Yes, another transmitter tower site. With grasp and
experience rather than mocking citations ("Surprise, surprise - another
transmitter tower site."), then one learns concepts. Montandon, et al
conclusions for equipotential as a solution eliminates SRE as a
solution:
1) ... a single entry point should be used for all
incoming services in order to avoid that part of
the lightning current flows through the building
as illustrated in Fig 9.

Figure 9 demonstrates problems created when utilities don't enter at
a common point - a building wide common point and not some protector
inside a room.

2) ... large loops should be avoided by suitable
cable routing inside the building.
3) Do not establish equipotentialization by mutliple
bonding of sensitive power or data cables to
different potential reference points within a
structure. ...
4) Follow within the building a bonding and routing
concept to interconnect different equipment by
power and data cables according to the
principles in Fig 12.

So where is equipotential established by point of use (plug-in)
protectors? Demonstrated are problems created by improper cable entry
to buildings, multiple bonding, and improper routing and bonding to
ground. Solutions require lower impedance and better conductivity.
SRE plug-in solution in a room does none of this. Due to current flows
through everything within a building (that makes the SRE solution
impossible), Montandon, et al demonstrate equipotential; better
achieved by routing, bonding, and lower impedance. Same solutions that
other citations discuss. Solutions that demonstrate why 'whole house'
protection (that also costs less) is so effective. Solutions that
demonstrate why plug-in protectors must avoid earthing discussions.
Once we apply missing facts, then every claim of effective plug-in
protector collapses. Plug-in protectors are not reliable protection.
But they do cost more money.

Repeatedly cited is that need for earth ground - a system that
provides both equipotential and conductivity. SRE plug-in protector
would do equipotentialization poorly even according to Montandon and
Rubinstein's paper.

Bud-- wrote:
...
I am for a surge suppressor at the power service and a single point
ground. The issue is ONLY whether plug-in surge suppressors are
effective. I don't remember waves of your papers in this thread. I don't
remember any links from you in this thread [one in a different branch
which is irrelevant]. One of my links is from the IEEE. Maybe you didn't
know that is an association of electical and electronic engineers.
PolyPhaser is probably a good reference if you have a transmitter with a
big tower that attracts lightning. If I was a ham I would be very
interested.
...

Earthing is a good idea. The question is whether plug-in surge
suppressors are effective.

Hot damn - actual links!!!
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
I have previously said that Ufer grounds are a lot better than ground
rods. I am on record as for them. Not relevant to surge suppressors.

http://www.erico.com/public/library/...es/tncr002.pdf
What do you know - a transmitter tower site. Most of us do not have a
very tall lightning rod next to our houses. For those of us who don't
expect to protect from a direct lighting strike a Surge Reference
Equalizer will work.

http://www.leminstruments.com/pdf/LEGP.pdf (page 14)
Thanks for the page reference. I assume you mean pdf page 14, not
document page 14. This page is about is measuring the ground resistance
of a Master Ground Bar at a Telco central office. It may surprise you
but few of us have a telephone switch in our basements. Not mentioned is
what the MGB is used for - which is to provide a single point ground
reference for wires entering the room/floor/whatever. I am in favor of
single point grounds. I saw no mention of plug-in surge suppressors not
being effective, although I personally wouldn't use one on a telephone
switch.

http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_TD1023.aspx
Surprise, surprise - another transmitter tower site. I previously have
said that single point grounds at the service are very important. From
PolyPhaser:
"Another is to provide some form of impulse protector for each of the
equipment's Input or Output (I/O) ports. These ports are usually the ac
power connection, a telephone or control line, and an antenna
transmission line." That is exactly what a Surge Reference Equalizer
does (but not likely inclding a transmitter antenna).
...

As I said earlier, I agree that a surge suppressor on the power service
and a single point ground reference is a good idea. But if this is one
of my sources it says plug-in surge suppressors work.
...

My references all say that plug-in surge suppressors are effecive;
didn't you read them? One of my sources [IEEE, the best one] was
originally posted by you; do you read your own citations before posting
them? Another of you previous posts had a different link recommeding
plug-in surge suppressors; you must have not read that one either.

The issue is ONLY whether plug-in surge suppressors are effective. My
links show the IEEE and NIST recommend them. Did you see that? You
constantly try to change the subject, but your links are totally
irrelevant or are silent on this issue, as usual.