Bud-- wrote:
...
Question:
If plug in surge suppressors are not effective, why does the paper,
divided into 7 sections, contain
section 5: Multi-port point-of-use (plug-in) protectors
section 6 Specific protection examples (all using SREs)
Place your answer in a separate post from other responses. I guess in
your excitement you forgot to explain this.

From Section 5 of a Mike Holt paper cited by Bud:
An additional feature ... if they are properly used,
is that all surge currents which come in from AC
wiring and signal connections (both active wires
and grounds) are disposed of via the AC ground,
back to the building ground.

What is performed by both plug-in protectors and 'whole house'
protectors? Where does every buck spend provide (enhance) protection?
Where does labor and parts result in significant transistor safety?
Among many points - plug-in protectors cost massively more for
inferior, if any, protection. Either we spend and enhance effective
'whole house' protection, or we waste time and money on protectors
from less responsible manufacturers. Less responsible? Show me where
a plug-in manufacturer even claims protection from transients that
cause damage? You cannot. Plug-in manufacturers do not make that
claim. Where are the numbers listing each type of transient? Not
provided.

Every cited paper - and now we add Mike Holt to the list - does
not blindly recommend plug-in protectors. These papers discuss merits
(pluses and minuses) of such protection; noting inferiority problems
using plug-in protectors. Spend tens of times more money and still
get less - if any - protection? Why does Mike Holt say,
"properly used"? He demonstrates numerous problems with plug-in
protectors. Below is a sampling of why plug-in protectors are
compromised AND can even contribute to adjacent appliance damage.

Figure 8 shows a plug-in protector adjacent to TV1. How much voltage
difference between that protector and earth? 8000 volts. Is that TV
going to charge up to 8000 volts and not find other, destructive paths
to earth? Of course not. 8000 volts can find paths - some
destructive - to earth via appliance. 8000 volts again demonstrates
why protection must be located at service entrance - why plug-in
protectors are not effective. Mike Holt makes a specific reference to
"properly used", and demonstrates why plug-in protectors can even
contribute to damage of adjacent electronics.

How curious? A point 1 in that Martzloff, et al paper says same
thing:
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.

Mike Holt puts numbers to an objectionable voltage - 8000 volts.

How many papers make a same point - that plug-in protectors (that
cost tens of time more money per protected appliance) can even
contribute to electronics damage? Even personal experience by
tracing a surge through plug-in protector and then through powered off
and networked computers was cited. How many times need we cite but
another failure (damage) made easier by plug-in protectors? AND where
does this mean Mike Holt recommends plug-in protectors? Bud - just
because Mike Holt discussed plug-in protectors does not - not for one
minute - mean that Section 5 *recommends* plug-in protectors.
Section 5 demonstrates numerous reasons why plug-in protectors can even
contribute to electronics damage. Mike Holt demonstrates difficulty in
making a plug-in protector effective.

Mike Holt demonstrates what that Martzloff, et al paper also says:
Figure 8 shows a very common improper use of multiport
protectors that does not fully protect against lightning
damage because of this effect. One multiport protector, D,
has been used in an attempt to protect two TV sets. The
installer assumed that the coaxial protector in D would
remove the lightning surge, and any TV sets downstream
would be safe without further protection.

Remember - they are shunt mode protectors. They shunt transients
to earth - to provide both conductivity and equipotential. Mike Holt
also notes what a plug-in protectors must do:
all surge currents ... are disposed of ... back to the building ground.

How curious. The protector works by connection to earth ground. Why
does the plug-in protector manufacturer 1) not provide the dedicated
earthing connection, and 2) does not discuss earthing? Why does
plug-in manufacturer avoid discussing that 8000 volts? That's 8000
volts that will find other earthing paths within the room - except if
the room is constructed as part of the protection.

Why would a plug-in protector connect currents back to an earth ground
that was ignored by that same current at the 'whole house'
protector? Think what is claimed. If earth ground at the 'whole
house' protector cannot earth a transient, then why would that same
transient seek that same earth ground via a plug-in protector? If
current cannot obtain earthing at the 'whole house' protector, then a
transient through a plug-in protector will find other (potentially
destructive) path to some other earthing inside the room.

Where is labor, money, and time better spent? Enhancing service
entrance earth ground; not buying grossly overpriced and ineffective
plug-in protectors. If earthing is not sufficient, then what will
plug-in protectors earth to? Less money better spent fixing the reason
why a transient was not earthed before entering a building. Money
better spent on fixing the real problem - insufficient earthing.

Mike Holt recommends plug-in protectors in Section 5? Au
contraire. Mike Holt cites numerous reasons in Section 5 why plug-in
protectors fail. Martzloff, et al make a same point with 'six
ports'. Any one port violated, then damage can result. How curious
that a Martzloff paper (knowing full well that most every lurker here
will not comprehend these 'six ports') then moves on to recommend a
'whole house' solution.

Will a layman appreciate 'six ports' defined in a Martzloff paper?
Of course not. Yet all 'six ports' must be understood to make a
plug-in protector effective. Mike Holt further defines multiple
reasons why a layman cannot "properly used" plug-in protectors.

Mike Holt demonstrates another plug-in protector problem:
Appropriate signal protectors are available for most
connections, but they must be carefully selected and
matched to the application.
The most obvious requirements are as follows:

Five points are listed. Then Mike Holt describes the problem:
Unfortunately, for most consumer electronics
equipment and protectors, the information to
answer these questions is not readily available.

What is the homeowner to do when information is not readily
available? Instead obtain conductivity and equipotential by properly
earthing effective 'whole house' protectors. Earth trasnsients long
before they get into the room.

BTW, Bud, everyone has a limited budget. $100 or $10,000 does many
times more at the 'whole house' as compared in plug-in protectors.
There is no separation between 'whole house' and plug-in solutions.
It all comes from the same dollar bills. More of one means less of
the other. Plug-in protectors typically cost tens of times more money
for inferior and complicated protection.

Consumer must understand all six ports? Consumer must answer Mike
Holt's five questions? Solution in a room not even designed to be
part of the protection system? No wonder plug-in protector
manufacturers don't say how or why their products work. No wonder
they will not tell you, me, and every lurker what is necessary for a
'point of use' protector - earthing. What did Mike Holt define to
make a plug-in protector effective?
all surge currents ... are disposed of ... back to the building ground.

And because that path is too far, the voltage different is listed in
his figure as .... 8000 volts.

And so again - this time from Mike Holt - we have THE most
critical component in every protection system: **earthing**.

Mike Holt describes how a plug-in protector even causes damage to TV1
and TV2 in figure 8.
Figure 9: Equipment that has its own ground can be
damaged by potential differences between two grounds.

Show me every housewife who will address all those grounding
questions? Most men lurking here don't even fully understand the
concept. And yet that is what Mike Holt demonstrates - what
Martzloff calls the 'six ports'. Any one path to ground not part
of a multiport protector means electronics damage. Or what was
described previously as no equipotential.

Again, a plug-in protector may simply make electronics damage
possible - even to powered off appliances. Just another reason why
effective protection in transmitter tower sites, telephone switching
centers, 911 emergency response centers, etc all put protection at a
single point earth ground AND distant from electronics. Notice that
last phrase: effective protection is located "farther from
electronics".

Where in Section 5 does Mike Holt recommend plug-in (point of use)
protectors. Instead he describes, multiple times over, why plug-in
protectors fail to protect.

Mike Holt describes another problem with plug-in protectors:
Typically, protector manufacturers cite a Joule rating
for the protector that is the sum of the (MOV
manufacturer's) Joule ratings for all the MOVs in the
product, and this has become a sort of "horsepower
race". However, especially in protectors of the 6C
design, the fusing may be set to such a low level that
the fuse opens (eliminating the surge protection) long
before the stated capability of the MOVs is reached.
If this happens, the claimed Joule rating is meaningless.

Why would one recommend spending more money on a plug-in protector
that has so many compromising complications? Even all its MOVs don't
get used in protection. Carefully address everything in Section 5;
what Martzloff calls 'six ports' are necessary to make protection
effective. Even room construction must be considered. Smart money
installs a 'whole house' protector AND enhances the most critical
'system' component: earthing.

Less technical expertise, labor, and money provides a superior
solution - a 'whole house' protector and single point earth
ground. An effective solution even sold under more responsible
manufacturer names such as Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Polyphaser, Siemens,
Square D, and GE. A solution found in Home Depot, Lowes, and
electrical supply houses. A simpler solution that is standard
protection even in high reliability facilities such as maritime
communication stations, cell phone towers, and every telephone
switching station. Do they use plug-in protectors? Of course not.
They want effective protection - not complications and hype.
Protection is defined by and is as effective as its earth ground.

Every dollar wasted in plug-in protectors is better spent in the
'whole house' solution - especially in earthing.