On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 11:47:05 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Previously, trader_4 denied that surges incoming to a home can be 20,000 amps. How ironic. His latest citation contradicts him. It says,
There is also a wide range in the severity of the
strike itself, with the very severe or very mild
being rare, the majority being in mid-range (a
current of about 20,000 amperes for a short time)


Anything else you want to misrepresent or lie about? Here is the
above, that you clearly misrepresent, in context:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

How far, how severe?
The answers to these two questions are linked. A nearby
lightning strike has more severe consequences than an equal
strike occurring farther away. There is also a wide range in
the severity of the strike itself, with the very severe or
very mild being rare, the majority being in mid-range (a
current of about 20,000 amperes for a short time)."


Clearly the NIST guide is talking about the *full lightning
strike* itself, not what shows up inside the house. I said
that it's unlikely that a 20KA surge is going to wind up at
a surge protector inside the house.

And what I said is 100% consistent with the IEEE document,
written by 4 experts on surge protection:

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf


"Some documents (IEEE Std C62.41.2„¢)7 suggest
10 kA (8/20 μs) as the largest surge that can reasonably be expected at a service
entrance, and this value has been used as the basis for some standards. UL 1449,
for example, requires only resistance to multiple 3000 Amp (8/20 μs) surges for
panel protectors, which could be used at the service entrance."

Note the 10KA.
Since you disagree, take it up with them, but at least stop misrepresenting
what they say and taking select words out of context.




How can this be? trader_4, with a mocking attitude, said surges incoming to a home are not that severe. His citation provides numbers that agree with the engineer - contradict the naysayer!


Which protectors have that low impedance connection to earth? 'Whole house'. Which do not? Plug-in (point of connection) protectors. Martzloff warned of damage "when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." Even trader_4's latest attempt at honesty is contradicted by his latest citation.


What Martzloff actually says, in his own words, in context, with a link
so anyone can verify it:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

"Plug-in Surge Protectors

This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."

Note that he endorses using them and does not say way you claim
ie that they should not be used, are dangerous, or cause fires.





Another Martzloff paper in 1991 describes plug-in protector on a branch circuit and why damage can happen:
CONCLUSION ...
2. While the main function of the device, limiting
overvoltages between line and neutral, is accomplished,
the return path for the surge current will produce
difference of potential among the conductive parts at
the end of the branch circuit, differences that can be
damaging to certain components of connected equipment.
3. A more effective protection scheme is to divert the
surges at the service entrance, rather than allow them
to flow in the branch circuits.

Point 2 describes damage to any nearby appliance by a plug-in protector and demonstrated in an IEEE brochure Figure 8 Page 33. Point 3 describes how to avert damage to all nearby appliances by simply properly earthing one 'whole house' protector.


The lie repeated. What Fig 8 actually shows is the use of a plug-in
surge protector, which the IEEE, like NIST endorses using. It shows TV1
being protected from a surge by a plug-in protector. It shows TV2
with no protector, being damaged. It concludes with:

"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

Page 33, fig 8.

Why is it that I have pages to cite, with the actual sentences quoted,
where everyone can read it in context, but you only have what you claim
something says?



An easy solution does not mean effective protection as trader_4 wishes. It only means it is easy and can easily make other damage possible - as Martzloff notes in so many IEEE papers.

Taking sentences out of context does not make one educated.

Boy that takes the cake from the guy that is doing EXACTLY THAT.
Even worse, you're outright lying about what the IEEE document says.
It's would be mightly strange for the IEEE experts to be recommending
to use a second plug-in surge protector if in fact they are causing
damage, instead of preventing it.

"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."