On 10/27/2015 9:01 AM, westom wrote:
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:04:19 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
I do understand what you've been saying about earthing. The current has
to have an entry and exit point as it's searching for it's target.

Surges that do damage are hunting for earth ground.

Surges created by normal and abnormal utility operations may be
line-to-line or line-to-neutral.


If that current is connected to earth BEFORE entering a structure, then no
destructive hunt exists inside the house.

A nearby lightning strike may be picked up as a surge with wiring acting
as a "long wire" or "loop" antenna. This is another surge that is not
"hunting for earth ground". Surge protection where wires enter the
building do not provide protection from this.


Best protection for TV cable is a hardwire from cable to single point earth
ground. Then a surge need not enter on TV cable.

Coax protection is normally a "ground block", which allows the coax
shield to be connected to the power earthing system. The IEEE surge
guide says “there is no requirement to limit the voltage developed
between the core and the sheath. .... The only voltage limit is the
breakdown of the F connectors, typically ~2–4 kV.” And "there is
obviously the possibility of damage to TV tuners and cable modems from
the very high voltages that can be developed, especially from nearby
lightning."

Every effort to improve earthing and lower impedance (ie shorten that hardwire)
increases appliance protection.

The author of the NIST guide (Martloff) has written “the impedance of
the grounding system to ‘true earth’ is far less important than the
integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system.”
In many houses the entry point for cable or phone is too far from the
power service to get effective bonding.

Protection, ultimately, is that the voltage between wires is
non-damaging; that when a surge hits the potential of all wires rises
together.

From westom you get a simple minded belief in earthing, which ignores
messy details, such as above, and is often completely wrong. Westom
hasn't disagreed with any of this, he just ignores it. He ignores
anything that conflicts with his simple-minded beliefs.


Still ignored - answers to simple questions:
- 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.