I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I
have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point
of use (outlet).
The two candiidates a

Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if
surge is sensed to be more than 2ms

Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company.

I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and
want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know.

Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out
there that you don't which is an good.

I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either.

Thanks,
Jay

Jay1028 wrote:

I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern.

What kind of 'surge' ?

Graham

On Jul 13, 5:52 pm, Jay1028 wrote:
I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I
have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point
of use (outlet).
The two candiidates a

Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if
surge is sensed to be more than 2ms

Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company.

I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and
want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know.

Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out
there that you don't which is an good.

I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either.

Thanks,
Jay

Panamax and Leviton devices are good surge protectors. Do not believe
everything you read about some device shutting off the surge in 2ms.
If you are talking about a lightning strike close by then NO surge
suppressor will completely elimate the problem 100% of the time.

On Jul 13, 3:35 pm, sparky wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:52 pm, Jay1028 wrote:



I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I
have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point
of use (outlet).
The two candiidates a

Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if
surge is sensed to be more than 2ms

Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company.

I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and
want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know.

Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out
there that you don't which is an good.

I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either.

Thanks,
Jay

Panamax and Leviton devices are good surge protectors. Do not believe
everything you read about some device shutting off the surge in 2ms.
If you are talking about a lightning strike close by then NO surge
suppressor will completely elimate the problem 100% of the time.

I agree with 100%. I live near the coast in southern California. We
get an overhead thunderstorm one a year. I had a UPS (15 years ago)
while working on my computer near a window. A lightning struck a pole
a few hundred yards away and the computer when down.
I restarted and my hard drive was not readable. I had to use norton
utilities (Mac) to recover all my from the drive and reformat it. The
drive failed a while later.

Now for the things I only heard about:
I have heard that your basic plug in "surge protectors" are not worth
the extra money. I think having a grounded system is the first matter
to be dealt with if the build has none (three pronged plugs).

I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing
can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at
10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read
not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so
besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in
the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to
the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run.

I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the
house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power
entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to
say about the cable installation.

Jay

Jay1028 wrote:

I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing
can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at
10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read
not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so
besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in
the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to
the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run.

I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the
house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power
entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to
say about the cable installation.

Jay


Were those ground rods tested for ground resistance? How deep are
they, and what part of the state are you in? There are a lot of
different soil conditions in different parts of Florida. We had to have
85 feet of ground rod driven before we passed the test in northern Lake
County about 20 years ago. It was about three feet short of length of
the well pipe.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Jay1028 wrote:

I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing
can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at
10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read
not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so
besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in
the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to
the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run.

I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the
house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power
entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to
say about the cable installation.


Were those ground rods tested for ground resistance? How deep are
they, and what part of the state are you in? There are a lot of
different soil conditions in different parts of Florida. We had to have
85 feet of ground rod driven before we passed the test in northern Lake
County about 20 years ago. It was about three feet short of length of
the well pipe.

Fortunately in the UK, the power company supplies the ground connection. That
saves a lot of such bother.

Graham

On Jul 13, 6:17 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Jay1028 wrote:

I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing
can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at
10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read
not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so
besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in
the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to
the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run.

I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the
house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power
entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to
say about the cable installation.

Jay

Were those ground rods tested for ground resistance? How deep are
they, and what part of the state are you in? There are a lot of
different soil conditions in different parts of Florida. We had to have
85 feet of ground rod driven before we passed the test in northern Lake
County about 20 years ago. It was about three feet short of length of
the well pipe.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I new the average was 4' to 6' so I thought adding a few more would
cover it all. I never thought one would have to go 85', now I will
get a professional to install a rod for serious matters.

Thanks

In article , wrote:
Jay1028 wrote:

I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing
can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at
10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read
not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so
besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in
the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to
the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run.

I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the
house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power
entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to
say about the cable installation.

Jay


Were those ground rods tested for ground resistance? How deep are
they, and what part of the state are you in? There are a lot of
different soil conditions in different parts of Florida. We had to have
85 feet of ground rod driven before we passed the test in northern Lake
County about 20 years ago. It was about three feet short of length of
the well pipe.

I never even heard of a test. I guess in some areas they don't worry about it.
You would think Florida would be pretty good conductivity compared to
most other areas. Most or all homes around me have a ground on the water pipe comming
into the house. Its a good ground, but the outside rods must be at the box. It
could span the distance of the house.
If you have standard telephone, don't forget to protect the incomming line.
Whatever you get, make use of the insurance. If its such a problem, I would have
the electric company install the device. I can "rent" a device by them at some extra expense.

greg

GregS wrote:

I never even heard of a test. I guess in some areas they don't worry about it.
You would think Florida would be pretty good conductivity compared to
most other areas. Most or all homes around me have a ground on the water pipe comming
into the house. Its a good ground, but the outside rods must be at the box. It
could span the distance of the house.
If you have standard telephone, don't forget to protect the incomming line.
Whatever you get, make use of the insurance. If its such a problem, I would have
the electric company install the device. I can "rent" a device by them at some extra expense.



The test was the ability to blow one of the old screw in 15 amp
household fuses. Sure, the well casing is grounded, but they are rarely
anywhere near the electrical service. Our well was over 100 feet from
the pole pig, and meter. Would you bet your life on a single #12 AWG
safety ground? I wouldn't. The ground rod was at the meter, and had to
be driven 85 feet, before it would blow the fuse.

Some areas of Florida are sugar sand, with VERY poor conductivity.
Lake county is one of those areas. 50 years ago, the sandy land was
used to grow oranges, and had very few residents.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Central Florida is the
lightning capital of the United States. Its quite common for a storm to
have over 3000 recorded strikes, per hour. Systems that are adequate in
safer areas just aren't good enough in a place like this. I have had
battery powered equipment explode from the EMP when a bolt hit the
marsh, 25 feet behind my shop. I had the CRT video dries blown on a VGA
monitor that was not only disconnected, but the video cable was wrapped
around the base of the monitor. I was resetting my computer desk, and
had just disconnected it when the storm hit. Hours later, after the
electricity came back on I had no monitor, or mouse.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Jay1028 wrote:

I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home.

'Generated out on the power lines' ????

Graham

Jay1028 wrote:
I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing
can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at
10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read
not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so
besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in
the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to
the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run.

I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the
house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power
entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to
say about the cable installation.

Jay

Just buy a small generator and run it with an electric motor. That will
smooth out surges.

--

Cockamamie Khomeini

Leader of the known (Islamic) world.

On Jul 14, 4:56 am, Cockamamie Khomeini
wrote:
Jay1028 wrote:
I am specifically talking about surges generated out on the power
lines on the poles propogating into my home. I realize that nothing
can stop a direct lighning hit. I have three ground rods spaced at
10ft apart joined at the center one with 6ga bare copper. I have read
not to create a ground loop by having different ground locations, so
besides what the builder had done with a piece of rebar embedded in
the concrete and one ground rod, I added three more. The 6ga run to
the meter and the load center behind it is about a 6 foot run.

I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the
house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power
entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to
say about the cable installation.

Jay

Just buy a small generator and run it with an electric motor. That will
smooth out surges.

--

Cockamamie Khomeini

Leader of the known (Islamic) world.

That's funny but it works. I guess the reason it does is because the
continuous duty motor does not react surges. I never hear my table
saw wind up suddenly, but my vacuum does if something else is
unplugged.
I thought my laptop would be protected if I had a 7amp battery run my
laptop while the same battery was being charged with a regular "plug
in the wall charger". I was told that it would not work as a surge
protector.

On Jul 13, 9:08 pm, Jay1028 wrote:
I next have to find a surge supressor for the cable coming into the
house. I opened the box mounted on the outside wall near the power
entry and there is just a grouning block in there. Nothing good to
say about the cable installation.

Again you are assuming a protector will somehow stop surges. If the
cable has the best surge protection, then it has only a ground block
($2 in Lowes), a short wire connection to earth ground (see other post
for the many factors absolutely required for that connection), and a
single point earth ground as Michael Terrell discusses.

Remember, no protector is protection. A protector is nothing more
than a connecting device to protection. Protection is earthing. What
defines quality of protection? Single point earthing. What is the
only component that each protection 'system' requires? Single point
earth ground. See details cited in that other post; a significant
amount of reading.

Those who have little concept of surge protection, instead, believe
magic protector boxes will somehow stop what three miles of sky could
not. Cable needs no protector. Protectors may even degrade TV and
internet signals. Your protection is only as good as your single
point earth ground. Repeated many times because so many have problems
admitting a retail store salesman or half truths on boxes were lies.

Rods are 8ft, 5/8" galvanized with bronze clamps.. I Live in
northeast Florida near Marineland.

On Jul 13, 10:45 pm, Jay1028 wrote:
Rods are 8ft, 5/8" galvanized with bronze clamps.. I Live in
northeast Florida near Marineland.

First, even effective surge protectors do not stop typically
destructive surges. One that implies protection forgets to mention it
protects from surges that typically don't damage - surges that don't
overwhelm protection already in all appliances.

Second, an effective protector acts like a switch; connects surges
to earth. Surges that may be inside or outside the building. The surge
that typically does damage is called lightning. We install effective
protectors to earth lightning; divert to earth before that surge can
enter a building.

What determines the effectiveness of that 'whole house' protector?
Quality of earthing and connection to earthing.

What is the Panamax going to do? Do you believe it will divert a
surge to the same earth ground? If a surge did not obtain earth
ground via a 'whole house' protector, then why would it obtain the
same earth ground path via a low quality path (from Panamax)? Just
another reason why the Panamax does not discuss earthing and does not
claim to protect from the type of surge that typically causes damage.
Read its numeric specs. Notice the Panamax does not even list which
type of surges it protects from. Otherwise you might learn it does
not protect from surges that typically destroy electronics.

Third, somehow is this assumption that a surge protector is
protection. A surge protector is simply a connecting device to
protection. Protection is that earth ground. How do you increase
protection? Enhance that earthing.

50 million protectors will not improve what that one (properly
sized) 'whole house' protector will accomplish. Enhancing may
significantly increase protection. But then even geology has not been
defined. More important than half truths from Panamax is information
such as geology.

Meanwhile, where does that Panamax even discuss earthing? It does
not because it does not even claim to protect from surges that
typically damage household appliances. No earth ground means no
effective protection.

Finally, don't waste money on solutions that don't even claim to
protect from typically destructive surges. Put that money into what
defines the quality of your protection. Detailed description of how
earth ground works for surge protection is in
comp.sys.mac.comm on 4 Jul 2007 entitled "DSL speed" at
http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:45 pm, Jay1028 wrote:
Rods are 8ft, 5/8" galvanized with bronze clamps.. I Live in
northeast Florida near Marineland.

First, even effective surge protectors do not stop typically
destructive surges. One that implies protection forgets to mention it
protects from surges that typically don't damage - surges that don't
overwhelm protection already in all appliances.


The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form
the IEEE:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
And also the NIST:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

For us surges coming in on US power wires, common mode surges are
converted to transverse mode by the neutral-ground bond at the service.
In any case, plugin suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That
covers all surge modes.


What determines the effectiveness of that 'whole house' protector?
Quality of earthing and connection to earthing.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
the suppressor (as Leonard said). Connecting all wiring through the
suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires.
These multiport suppressors are described in the IEEE guide.

According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
most frequently damaged by lightning is
computers with a modem connection
TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
connections).
All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

Another important protection element, referred to by someone else, is
single point ground. The most important part of a single point ground is
that phone, CATV, ... protection blocks connect with a *short* ground
wire to the earthing wire at the power service. With a large surge there
will always be a difference from the house ground to ‘absolute’ ground.
The goal is for the power, CATV and phone 'grounds' to rise together.
The author of the NIST guide wrote “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 phone, CATV service entry are distant from the power
service. The IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) provides an example of
what can happen if the interconnecting wires are too long. In that case
the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment
is to use a multiport protector." (But another method is to run the
phone wire from the entry NID to the power service area and install a
2nd NID, then distribute the phone wires from there.)



Meanwhile, where does that Panamax even discuss earthing? It does
not because it does not even claim to protect from surges that
typically damage household appliances. No earth ground means no
effective protection.

The religious belief in earthing again.

And the myth of the magic damaging surge again.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Ratings range from junk to very high.

The IEEE guide lists earthing, single point ground, power service
surge suppression, and plug-in suppressors as protection elements. If I
was in high lightning areas I would use them all.


It is not obvious what the Power Sentry reference to 2ms is about. A
surge will be over far before 2 ms. It could be that the Power Sentry
will disconnect if there is overvoltage for 2 ms.
(The author of the NIST guide wrote "in fact, the major cause of TVSS
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge.")

---------------------------
I though the ground water was usually near the surface in Florida. Even
if the soil is sand wouldn’t the ground water provide a good ground? (I
have read other reliable sources say resistance to ground is a problem.)


--
bud--

On Jul 18, 2:53 am, bud-- wrote:
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form
the IEEE:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
And also the NIST:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half
truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to
acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high.

Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far
from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective
earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground
destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not
necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But
Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even
destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector.
Therefore it was too far from earth ground.

A surge finds earth ground. If not earthed before entering a
building, then a surge may even find destructive paths through
disconnected appliances. This was demonstrated even by early 20th
Century Ham radio operators who would put their antenna wires even
inside a mason jar. Damage to disconnected equipment still resulted.
When the antenna (incoming) wire was earthed. then damage stopped.
Protection means surges must be earthed before entering a building.

Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection.
But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of
24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

All appliances contain internal protection. Protection that may be
overwhelmed if surges are not properly earthed before entering the
building. Protection that may be overwhelmed if a protector is too
close to an appliance and therefore earths that surge destructively
through the appliance: Page 42 Figure 8.

A long list of responsible companies do make 'whole house'
protectors that costs tens of times less money per appliance AND
provide superior protection. This long list includes names that any
electrically informed guy will recognize: Square D, Cutler-Hammer,
Intermatic, Leviton, GE, Siemens. One 'whole house' protector does so
much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire.
These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical
supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50.

Why do plug-in promoters fear you learn what is necessary for
effective protection? Let's see. Bud's protector is a $3 power strip
with some $0.10 components. It is sold for $25 or $100. With profit
margins that high, then it was essential for Bud to not discuss
earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection.

Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point
earth ground. Surge protection is secondary to profit margins. Even
his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that
reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no
earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A
protector simply connects a surge to protection. But a protector
promoted as a magic box becomes a profit center.

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 18, 2:53 am, bud-- wrote:
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form
the IEEE:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
And also the NIST:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half
truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to
acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high.

To quote the all-knowing w_ “It is an old political trick. When facts
cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

My “half truths” come from the IEEE and NIST. w_’s opinions come from
his religious belief in earthing - with no sources.


Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far
from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective
earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground
destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not
necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But
Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even
destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector.
Therefore it was too far from earth ground.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop.
There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor
protects TV1 connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power service
is too long (not a “single point ground”). As I said in my previous
post, the IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector.”

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing
he has to distort what the IEEE guide says about them.



Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection.

Poor w_ can’t figure out that my last post covered earthing, as do
both guides .

And because plug–in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in
earthing he can’t understand how they work. Repeating from my last
post: “The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The
guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf
page 40).”

But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of
24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

The question is not about earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and:
"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,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV 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."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing
he has to distort what the NIST guide says about them.


One 'whole house' protector does so
much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire.
These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical
supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50.

w_ has never provided a link to the mythical $50 ‘whole house
protector’. Or specs for one.
Yet another claim w_ can't back up with a source.


Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point
earth ground.

If w_ could only read and think he would have seen single point ground
was a major point in my last post.

Even
his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that
reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no
earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A
protector simply connects a surge to protection.

And the religious belief in earthing again.

The question is not earthing – everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

Never explained by w_:
- 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".


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--

copper cage your home, generate ur own power, no surges!

go all solar, go all wind, get some treadmills and put the kids/you to work

if you must protect from power company "events" as they call them, then get
uself an "event" monitoring system/meter/recorder.

then when your appliances/other get toasted, deliver the power company a
hefty bill for their replacement/repair along with a recording of the
"event" on paper

get a neighborhood group together to get a regional event monitor, then
everyone can submit bills on a regular basis.

if you need pure reliable energy, ask the electric utility company to
provide u with special xmission lines right to your own house as special
treatment

or even better, dont use power (be 'green') :-D


"Jay1028" wrote in message
...
I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I
have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point
of use (outlet).
The two candiidates a

Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if
surge is sensed to be more than 2ms

Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company.

I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and
want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know.

Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out
there that you don't which is an good.

I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either.

Thanks,
Jay

I like Hapticz post. Don't use the power company at all. I have read
all the IEEE and NIST info and it looks like I am doing what I can to
make the earthing as good as I can, I may be supporting all the hocus
pocus that the surge protector companies put out by buying some of
their products, but al least I am doing a lot a reading and making a
somewhat educated decision on what to buy.

The whole house device is my best bet and I'll just have to be
dependent on the clamping feature provided by the point of use
devices. I'll spend a couple of hundred doillars on devices that may
or may not save my equipment, but I figure it is better than doing
nothing.

What type of equipment are you protecting?

My experience is that the Panamax units are very good and very effective.
We use them on nearly every system we install, here in north central
Florida, which sees more lightning than most areas in the US. We rarely see
any system damage on properly installed units. This means that all incoming
signal lines in addition to power are connected through the surge
suppressor, all incoming lines are grounded according to code, and the
elsectrical service ground is intact and effective. We DO see system damage
when cable installers disconnect the cable line from the surge suppressor,
however, which leads me to believe that the signal lines are critical to
protection. The whole house suppression probably does not address this.

Leonard

"Jay1028" wrote in message
...
I have moved to a location (Florida) where surges are a concern. I
have been looking at two candidates for surge protection at the point
of use (outlet).
The two candiidates a

Power Sentry 100344 -- which says it will disconnect the load if
surge is sensed to be more than 2ms

Panamax M4T-EX which is MOV based from a highly rated company.

I have a whole house MOV based protector by LEA at the load center and
want to do more. Maybe more is better? I don't know.

Anyone used a system that they know works? There is so much info out
there that you don't which is an good.

I'm not sure if this is the correct group for this question either.

Thanks,
Jay

On Jul 15, 7:22 pm, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:
. We DO see system damage when cable installers disconnect the
cable line from the surge suppressor, however, which leads me to
believe that the signal lines are critical to protection. The whole
house suppression probably does not address this.

Any protector that does not make a short connection to earth ground
does what? Earthing that surge destructively elsewhere such as
through the adjacent appliance. Any protection that works at the
appliance is already inside the appliance. New standards mean that
signal lines must withstand even 15,000 volts without damage. Yes
that few volt signal line must also not be damaged by 2,000 and 15,000
volts

So we earth that surge before it even enters the building - does not
get near to signal lines.

Did damage exist? That says little about the protector and says
nothing about a plug-in protector. That damage says a surge was
permitted inside the building to maybe overwhelm protection inside
signal lines.

How does the telephone company with signal lines everywhere inside
their building not suffer computer damage? Every wire is properly
earthed either by a direct earthing connection or via a 'whole house'
type protector. Why is telephone service not down for four days every
year while they replace that computer? Why can that computer suffer
one hundred surges during every thunderstorm and not suffer damage?
They don't use grossly overpriced Panamax or Monster Cable products.
Instead they spend less money on more effective 'whole house' type
protectors and they enhance that single point earthing. How is the
protection made even better? They install even better earth grounds.

Did a surge enter on cable TV wire? Then how was that cable
earthed. Installing a Panamax on that cable TV wire is even not
recommended by the cable company for the same reasons that early 20th
Century Ham radio operators finally stopped surges. Will the Panamax
absorb surges?

The Panamax does not even claim to protect from type of surges that
typically cause electronics damage. Those who recommend that Panamax
routinely ignore that reality. Good reason why Panamax does not make
that claim. No dedicated earthing wire. No earth ground means no
effective protection.

Meanwhile, smoke detectors also were not routinely damaged during
surges. Is that because smoke detectors are connected to invisible
protectors? No. If something is undamaged with a Panamax proves
nothing since other appliances also are not damaged - and have no
Panamax. Damning is that the Panamax does not even claim to protect
from that type of surge.

On Jul 15, 7:22 pm, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:
. We DO see system damage when cable installers disconnect the
cable line from the surge suppressor, however, which leads me to
believe that the signal lines are critical to protection. The whole
house suppression probably does not address this.

Any protector that does not make a short connection to earth ground
does what? Earthing that surge destructively elsewhere such as
through the adjacent appliance. Any protection that works at the
appliance is already inside the appliance. New standards mean that
signal lines must withstand even 15,000 volts without damage. Yes
that few volt signal line must also not be damaged by 2,000 and 15,000
volts

So we earth that surge before it even enters the building - does not
get near to signal lines.

Did damage exist? That says little about the protector and says
nothing about a plug-in protector. That damage says a surge was
permitted inside the building to maybe overwhelm protection inside
signal lines.

How does the telephone company with signal lines everywhere inside
their building not suffer computer damage? Every wire is properly
earthed either by a direct earthing connection or via a 'whole house'
type protector. Why is telephone service not down for four days every
year while they replace that computer? Why can that computer suffer
one hundred surges during every thunderstorm and not suffer damage?
They don't use grossly overpriced Panamax or Monster Cable products.
Instead they spend less money on more effective 'whole house' type
protectors and they enhance that single point earthing. How is the
protection made even better? They install even better earth grounds.

Did a surge enter on cable TV wire? Then how was that cable
earthed. Installing a Panamax on that cable TV wire is even not
recommended by the cable company for the same reasons that early 20th
Century Ham radio operators finally stopped surges. Will the Panamax
absorb surges?

The Panamax does not even claim to protect from type of surges that
typically cause electronics damage. Those who recommend that Panamax
routinely ignore that reality. Good reason why Panamax does not make
that claim. No dedicated earthing wire. No earth ground means no
effective protection.

Meanwhile, smoke detectors also were not routinely damaged during
surges. Is that because smoke detectors are connected to invisible
protectors? No. If something is undamaged with a Panamax proves
nothing since other appliances also are not damaged - and have no
Panamax. Damning is that the Panamax does not even claim to protect
from that type of surge.

w_tom wrote:



The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Urge suppressors, what a good idea. I think urge suppressors should be
applied to all convicted child molestors and all suicide bombers...then they
should be grounded to a level of 6 ft. If there is any doubt on the
effectiveness, then Michaels ground test should be applied.

You can find info on keeping them legal from the NRA.

Leonard

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
w_tom wrote:



The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Leonard Caillouet wrote:

Urge suppressors, what a good idea. I think urge suppressors should be
applied to all convicted child molestors and all suicide bombers...then they
should be grounded to a level of 6 ft. If there is any doubt on the
effectiveness, then Michael's ground test should be applied.

You can find info on keeping them legal from the NRA.


I have plenty of 100 A fuses for that application. I'd even spring
for a 150 A circuit breaker! The question is, would it stop sleezebags
from running for office? ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

w_tom wrote:



The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years.

I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day,
and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone
who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to
verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has
transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me
that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals.
For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts,
and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple
MOV works.

What's really annoying is that he patronisingly directs people to
consult datasheets when he himself avoids doing the same, or
misunderstands them when he does. If you challenge him with actual
numbers and formulae, he will run away and attempt to disguise his
ignorance with a page of tedious, convoluted technobabble.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

w_tom wrote:



The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years.

I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day,
and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone
who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to
verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has
transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me
that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals.
For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts,
and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple
MOV works.

What's really annoying is that he patronisingly directs people to
consult datasheets when he himself avoids doing the same, or
misunderstands them when he does. If you challenge him with actual
numbers and formulae, he will run away and attempt to disguise his
ignorance with a page of tedious, convoluted technobabble.

- Franc Zabkar

Most of us have given up on trying to make sense out of his posts and trying
to have any real dialogue with him. You can hurt your brain doing so.
Michael's has exploded at least once, and I think Bud has suffered some
damage as well. You have to give Bud credit for his persistence, though.

Leonard

Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:13:19 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

w_tom wrote:

The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years.

I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day,
and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone
who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to
verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has
transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me
that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals.
For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts,
and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple
MOV works.

My guess is that he was once quite sharp but is rather impaired now.

Some of his comments are very good. The comments you refer to on
aus.electronics were amazingly (and I think uncharacteristically) bad.
He sometimes totally misunderstands what people say (in addition to
making things up). He has a fetish for tower antennas - ham? worked in
broadcast?

He uses google-groups to search - favorites are surge, lightning and
power supply. Always certain, sometimes right.

Someone posted not too long ago (I have no idea if it is accurate but
hey - this is the usenet):
IP address: 71.224.156.198
Reverse DNS: c-71-224-156-198.hsd1.pa.comcast.net.
Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
ASN: 33287
ASN Name: DNEO-OSP4
IP range connectivity: 2
Registrar (per ASN): ARIN
Country (per IP registrar): US [United States]
Country Currency: USD [United States Dollars]
Country IP Range: 71.128.0.0 to 71.255.255.255
Country fraud profile: Normal
City (per outside source): Phoenixville, Pennsylvania
Country (per outside source): US [United States]
Private (internal) IP? No


--
bud--