Excellent information on surges and surge protection is at:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE (the IEEE is a major
organization of electrical and electronic engineers).
And also:
http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology
(Both have been previously posted.)
The IEEE surge guide is aimed at people with some technical background.
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:32:37 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
BS. The IEEE guide clearly says so.
trader_4 has no idea what it says. He takes sentences out of context. Many completely different surges are summarized. One that is tiny (typically cause no damage) is connected on a safety ground back to the breaker box. A completely different and destructive transient is why a connection must be to earth AND must be low impedance. Why do so many professionals require that low impedance connection if safety ground wires are sufficient? Because trader_4 misreads. He intentionally ignores some paragraphs to lie.
Westom ignores anything that conflicts with his very limited views of
protection. He takes sentences out of context to try to make sources say
the opposite of what they really say.
The IEEE surge guide clearly says plug-in protectors are effective. The
only detailed examples of protection use plug-in protectors.
The NIST surge guide also clearly says plugin protectors are effective.
When using a plug-in protector all interconnected equipment needs to be
connected to the same protector. External connections, like coax also
must go through the protector.
Multiple Martzloff papers,
Martzloff is the author of the NIST surge guide, which says plug-in
protectors are effective. Martzloff wrote many published research
papers. All of them that covered on surge protection say that plug-in
protectors are effective. Westom is fond of misquoting one of them to
completely reverse Martzloff's conclusion.
At alt.engineering.electrical westom mischaracterized the views of
Martloff coauthor Arshad Mansoor and provoked a response from an
electrical engineer: "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a
paper by Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of
[multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from
me. LOL." (Multiport protectors have connections for all wiring
including cable and telephone, where appropriate, to wire through.)
IEEE Red and Emerald Books,
The "Emerald Book" ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment") is particularly relevant to
surge protection. It recognizes plug-in protectors as an effective
protection device.
Why do we know he is lying? Where does he even cite one specification number? He doesn't.
Many people have put up specs. Westom just ignores them.
How ironic. Figure 8 page 33 shows similar. Because impedance on a safety ground wire is excessive,arth as trader_4 claims.
In westom's limited view of protection, a protector must directly earth
a surge. The IEEE surge guide explains (starting page 30) plug in
protectors do not work primarily by earthing surges. Earthing occurs
elsewhere. Plug-in protectors work by limiting the voltage from each
wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. The voltage
between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the
protected equipment. It is just one of many things ignored by westom.
It earths a surge through a nearby TV - 8000 volts destructively. Which one would expect when that 120 ohms impedance exists. Those damning numbers again.
Anyone with minimal mental abilities can discover what the IEEE surge
guide says in this example:
- A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- The illustration "shows a very common improper use of multiport
protectors"
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the earthing system at the power
service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE surge guide says
"the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a
multiport [plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO
protection.
It is simply a lie that the plug-in protector damages the second TV
That downstream protector must somehow only absorb hundreds of joules.
Neither service panel or plug-in protectors work by "absorbing" surges.
The way plug-in protectors work is clearly described above (from the
IEEE guide), but it violates westom's apparently religious belief in
earthing.
As for the energy that can make it to a plug-in protector, a Martzloff
research paper looked at that question. Surges on power service wires
were up to the maximum that has any reasonable probability of occurring
(10,000A per wire) and branch circuits were 10m and longer The maximum
energy was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1
joule or less. All listed protectors likely have much higher ratings
than 35J, and protectors with far higher ratings are readily available.
High ratings mean long life.
One of the reasons the energy was so small is that for a strong surge on
power wires, at about 6,000V there is arc-over from busbars to the
enclosure. Since the enclosure (and building ground and neutral) are
connected to the earthing system that dumps most of the surge energy to
earth. This is detailed in Martzloff's paper. (Note that this protection
does not include a service panel protector.)
And then another problem often seen when a 'whole house' protector is not reducing currents reaching downstream protectors ... fire. Another problem that trader_4 repeatedly denied.
Lacking valid technical arguments westom uses scare tactics. Since 1998
UL has required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs. Where is the
massive record of fires from UL listed protectors made since 1998?
More ignored sentences:
There are three requirements of the service entrance
SPD.
Service panel protectors are a real good idea.
But from the NIST surge guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."
Service panel protectors do not, by themselves, prevent high voltages
from developing between power and phone/cable/... wires. The NIST surge
guide suggests most equipment damage is from high voltage between power
and signal wires.
An engineer who did this stuff has been saying that repeatedly. Why does trader_4 ignore such sentences. Apparently he likes picking cherries.
Westom says plug-in protectors do NOT work.
But he has NEVER answered simple questions (cherries that he ignored):
- Why do the only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge
guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are "the
easiest solution"?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "One effective solution is to have
the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "Plug-in...The easiest of all for
anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to choose?'"
- Why does the IEEE surge guide says for distant entry points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
- Why does the IEEE surge guide explain how plug-in protectors work -
and it is not primarily by earthing?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent and
reliable information on surge protection. And both say plug-in
protectors are effective.
Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors do
NOT work. There are none.