westom wrote:

Why does the NIST say grounding is required for protection?

Everyone is in favor of earthing.

The NEC requires the service neutral to be bonded to the ground and both
be connected to earthing electrode(s). (That directly earths any surge
on the neutral.)

The NEC requires an entrance protector for telephone wires, with the
voltage on the wires clamped to a terminal connected to the earthing system.

The NEC requires a ground block on cable and antenna coax where the
cable enters the building with the ground block connected to the
earthing system. (That does not limit the voltage on the center conductor.)

That is the required wiring under the NEC.

With a strong surge current to earth, the building "ground" system can
rise thousands of volts above "absolute" earth potential. Much of the
protection is actually that the power, cable, phone, ... wires rise
together. (If phone and cable entry protectors are not near the power
service and connected with short ground wires that can not be assured.)
According to Martzloff, improving the interconnections between systems
is more important than reducing the resistance to earth.

Where is this
IEEE paper that shows longitudinal mode protection is without earth
ground?

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

Every paper I read is always about earth ground.

Your religious blinders do not allow you to read anything in the papers
that contradicts your religious belief in earthing.

Like a Martzloff paper that says "Mitigation of the threat can take many
forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a
properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." You have often
try to make the paper say the opposite of what Martzaloff was saying.

Even this
professional's application note says every wire must connect to earth
before entering the building.

That certainly solves almost all of the surge problem.

But it is hard to get power, telephone and cable through the earthed wires.

Do you magically stop what even
three miles of sky could not? Of course not.

w thinks plug-in suppressors are "magic" because his religious blinders
prevent him from reading the clear explanation in the IEEE guide of how
they work.

Do you magically make
that energy just disappear? Of course not.

Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread)
but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

The NIST says how critical earth ground is:

With respect to plug-in suppressors what does the NIST guide really say?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.

When surge
protection is always about earth ground

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.


Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still never answered - 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, pdf 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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel
suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

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

--
bud--