On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
On 2/11/2014 2:16 PM, wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:06:22 PM UTC-5, Bob_Villa wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:51:20 PM UTC-6, Bob_Villa wrote:



You repeat yourself multiple times in this one post...you have to be desperate!



You need to sit down and relax...take a few breaths!



"Why Whole Building Surge Protectors Don't Work"

http://www.us-tech.com/RelId/1082596...27t_Work.h tm



I hope you realize that both this source and the one you cited in

your previous posts come from the same source and that source apparently

owns a business that sells alternative forms of surge supprssors. What

his company sells is different than either the common plug-ins that

you acknowledge work, or the MOV approach that is used in whole house

surge protectors. It's rather odd that you'd bring up a guy who's in

the business of selling expensive surge protector strips, $160, when

you previously made the comment about me sounding like I was giving

a sales job.



I agree. They are both sales propaganda for Zero Surge.





In the reference above, he cites EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute)

that did a "System Compatibility Research Project". That report is

available:



http://www.epri.com/search/Pages/res...arch%20Project



The research and report covered TOV (Temporary Over Voltage) which is

totally different from surge protection. It's the type of fault that

the IEEE discussed and made clear surge protectors are not designed to

handle. Nor have they ever claimed to handle such events. TOV are

not surges, but rather long duration overvoltages

from crossed lines, bad neutrals, regulation fault on the power grid,

etc. I explained that to you several posts ago, where you misapplied

what the IEEE guide actually says.



I didn't look up the article. Interesting. I have seen other Zero Surge

pieces that seriously distort reality.



Like for instance the other article. Says UL 1449 is for "older shunt

mode technology" (MOVs, which Zero Surge does not use). And their

"filter technology is covered under UL 1283 'Electromagnetic

Interference Filters.' " UL1283 is for noise filters, not surge

protectors.





The authors of the above article make that clear as well. Look at

what they say at the beginning of section 6. They aren't saying

that a whole house unit won't work and a plug-in will, they are

saying that all MOV based surge protectors will fail if subjected

to TOV. No one disputes that, but it says nothing about whole

house surge protectors being ineffective against *surges*, not TOV.



I also don't buy Hartford's claim that 80% of surges that you need

to be concerned about come from within the house.



I agree it is BS, and another red flag on the author. Perhaps BobV could

come up with a creditable source that says significant surges are

generated inside the house. BobV appears to believe it.



What is ironic is that his one source doesn't just say whole house
surge protectors don't work. From what I see, he's saying plug-ins
and anything else that use MOVs are also no good. But BobV has no
issue with plug-ins. It's also kind of funny from the standpoint
that BobV is saying that $125 is more than he'd spend for a whole
house protector and then he cites a guy who owns a company
selling $160 tow receptacle, plug-in ones. And that $160 plug-in
may be a fine and better surge protector than the $25 MOV type. But that
doesn't have anything to do with whole house surge protectors
being useless, which is what's claimed. And as previously stated,
anyone that cites a coffee pot turning on and off as a source of
surges that needs to be protected against, IMO is highly suspect.
I'd like to see the surge profile on the circuit from that purely
resistive load going on and off.

One interesting thing he did lead us to is this:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login...umber%3D231979

It's referenced in that EPRI study. It's an IEEE paper on
the concept of cascaded surge protectors. (I think we were discussing
that in anothe thread . They apparently looked at what happens
if you have a higher clamping voltage panel protector followed
by a lower voltage device at the protected eqpt and vice-versa.
Can't see the article without paying, but it sounds like the
results were mixed, which is not surprising.