E Z Peaces wrote:
bud-- wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote:
bud-- wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote:
Years ago, I was impressed with the argument at the website of an
English manufacturer (Zero Surge?) that if your phone ground
electrode wasn't bonded to your power ground electrode, it was safer
not to plug your phone line into your point-of-use protector. That's
the kind of thing where a diagram would refresh my memory.
If the phone grounding electrode isn't bonded to the power system
ground you better not connect anything to both the power and phone
lines (like a computer). A plug-in suppressor would give you a chance.
For good protection, not only must the phone entry protector connect
to the "ground" at the power system, the connection must be with a
short wire to prevent high voltage between power and phone lines. That
is the moral of the IEEE illustration (starting pdf page 40) for
cable. In the case of a wire that is too long the IEEE guide says "the
only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector." (Ignored, of course, by w.)
I was mistaken. Zero Surge is American. Now they recommend against
multiport protectors.
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/teleres.html
Zero Surge does not use MOVs in their suppressors. Their pitch is to
discredit MOV based suppressors. Their propaganda, last I looked, was
kinda ridiculous.
If there is high voltage between power and signal wires you can't
protect without a multiport suppressor. The NIST guide suggests
equipment is most likely to be damaged by high voltage between power and
signal wires.
They don't explain it with diagrams. Switching to a multiport stopped
my BIL's modem from blowing its fuses.
Not bonding is a code violation in the US, and I believe all phone
companies are indoctrinated into making the connection. They don't
necessarily understand the importance of a short connection. And if
the phone entry location is distant from the power service you can't
have a short connection.
My SEs are 20 feet apart. I bonded them after I found 0.25VAC between
the electrodes. I was online when lightning hit a tree 30 feet from my
power SE. I had no damage, but the phone man had to replace the "fuses"
on the telephone pole. (They call them something else.)
With thousands of amps from a lightning strike spreading out from the
point of earthing the potential of the earth rises. It is easy to get
thousands of volts between separated ground rods near the strike. The
thousands of volts will appear at equipment connected to power and phone
wires.
The IEEE guide says you can have the same problem at equipment like a
pad mounted A/C compressor/condenser. With a very near strike the pad
and equipment can be a very different potential from the power system
ground and power wires.
I told him I thought bonding had saved me. He beat around the bush for
20 minutes, then said the code requires it but it's phone-company policy
not to comply. He said surges usually come in on the power company's
neutral. If the electrodes are bonded, the clamping of the phone
company's SE protector can send the surge into the phone line. That's
why he had to replace his fuses.
It should be illegal to be that stupid.
If a strong surge on power wires is earthed through its ground rod the
potential at the distant phone ground rod can be thousands of volts
different.
The lack of bonding appears common around here. It may save the phone
company a few fuses, but it puts the lives and equipment of residents at
risk.
Across the street, my neighbor refused to bond his electrodes. The bolt
that struck my house didn't damage any of my phone/computer equipment,
but it got his modem, computer, cordless phones, and satellite receiver.
He called the phone company, and there technician said there was
nothing wrong with the grounding. So my neighbor told me I was wrong.
His BIL is a power-company executive. He said I was right. So my
neighbor had the phone guy return. This time the phone guy admitted
that the code required bonding and it was the phone company's
responsibility. He said he would expedite it if my neighbor would give
him free music lessons. My neighbor agreed, but the phone man never
returned and the electrodes are still not bonded.
It sure inspires confidence when you know what to do and the utility
still does it wrong.
The phone company should be liable for any damage.
You could try a complaint to whatever agency regulates the phone company
to get compliance at all installations. In MN some dish installers were
required to go back and properly bond their installations.
That example uses a TV plugged into a different outlet from the cable
protector. Wouldn't it be better to plug the TV into an extension
cord daisy chained with the cable protector?
It would be better than what is shown. A lot better idea to not use an
extension cord from the TV to the suppressor and use a second
suppressor. They aren't real expensive (unless you only buy Monster
products like w).
Are you talking about something other than daisy chaining?
I don’t like daisy chaining. I am talking about a separate suppressor at
the 2nd TV plugged into the outlet at the 2nd TV with the cable wire
going through it. (It is what the IEEE guide says to do.)
--
bud--