|
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
Hi,
GFCI's have some surge protection built in to protect them from surges in house wiring. Does this same surge protection extend a bit to protect what is pluged into a GFCI? I guess this may be a dumb question in that I know that there are surge supression receptacles out there, but those ones cost about 2.5 times a GFCI receptacle. Can I get a "cheap" surge supressor in installing a GFCI? Best, mMike. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
|
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
No!
|
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
wrote in message oups.com... No! You need to elaborate! Whole house surge protection worked for me. Also, I agree about the additional point protection and what GFCIs do and don't do. A simple "No" is not enough here, my friend. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
"Charles Schuler" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com... No! You need to elaborate! Whole house surge protection worked for me. Also, I agree about the additional point protection and what GFCIs do and don't do. A simple "No" is not enough here, my friend. Why? It was a simple Yes/No question. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
"Noozer" wrote in message news:FjgOh.79956$DN.66681@pd7urf2no... "Charles Schuler" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com... No! You need to elaborate! Whole house surge protection worked for me. Also, I agree about the additional point protection and what GFCIs do and don't do. A simple "No" is not enough here, my friend. Why? It was a simple Yes/No question. Because "No" is often an absolute negative or a rebuke or a snotty response or disciplinary. If I ask you to lend me money, "No" is an acceptable response. If I ask, a group, about a fairly complex issue, "No" all by itself is meaningless as a response and as a response to a response, it is poor behavior. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Mar 27, 7:19 am, wrote:
GFCI's have some surge protection built in to protect them from surges in house wiring. Does this same surge protection extend a bit to protect what is pluged into a GFCI? All electronic devices contain surge protection. As even shown in the National Semiconductor application note for their GFCI chip, that protector is only for one type of surge, very small, and for protecting GFCI's internal electronics. Protection from which type of surge? All electronics contain protection that makes that type of surge irrelevant. Typically destructive surge seeks earth ground. Surge that typically does damage is earthed before getting near to household appliances or GFCI. No protector adjacent to an appliance (or GFCI) will provide such protection. Anything that would work already exists inside the appliance (as even defined by industry standards). Worse, those other surges may pass through appliances destructively to earth if protector is too close to electronics. Any protection inside the receptacle 1) is already solved inside the appliance, 2) is too close to transistors. 3) too far from earth ground, and 4) is really for surges that don't typically do the damage. Learn what telcos do; with $multi-million computers connected to overhead wires all over town. Telcos also don't use plug-in (useless 'point of use') protectors. Why waste money? Telcos also install protectors where wires enter the building; connected within feet to earth ground. How do telcos make protection even better? Money is directed where protection is made even better - the earthing system. A protector is not protection. Earthing is the protection. A protector is a connecting device to protection. What defines the quality of that protection? How good is the earthing. Meanwhile, why would a protector inside a receptacle be any safer than other plug-in protectors? View current technology protectors that are located where fire danger is greater: http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm Do you want this device in a room or inside a plastic wall box? Learn what the telco also wants and needs to protect their transistors. Protector must be adjacent to earthing AND protector must be distant from those transistors. How distant? Up to 50 meters distant because separation is also part of the protection - and a short connection to earth is essential. Those promoting plug-in protectors must promote half truths. That troll who will arrive to promote for the plug-in industry (and deny it) will be along soon. Meanwhile, protection is about earthing. No way around reality. Even the IEEE demands earthing, bluntly, in standards. Protector in that GFCI makes a trivial type of surge irrelevant. But it does not even claim to protect from the typically destructive type of surge. Protection inside all appliances can be overwhelmed if the 'whole house' protector is not installed and properly earthed. That same internal protection has been overwhelmed because an adjacent protector existed. It's always the same question. What was the path a surge took to earth ground. That is the path of damage - or why the surge never entered the building. Provides are the 'whys' that some ignore to promote myths and, well, look at those scary pictures of protectors that meet current standards - and nobody asked anything more. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:19 am, wrote: GFCI's have some surge protection built in to protect them from surges in house wiring. Does this same surge protection extend a bit to protect what is pluged into a GFCI? For accurate information on surges and surge protection try: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf - the title is "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 in 2005 (the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US). And: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf - this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home" published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency formerly called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001 Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public to explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background. Typically destructive surge seeks earth ground. Surge that typically does damage is earthed before getting near to household appliances or GFCI. No protector adjacent to an appliance (or GFCI) will provide such protection. Bullcrap. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Anything that would work already exists inside the appliance (as even defined by industry standards). Worse, those other surges may pass through appliances destructively to earth if protector is too close to electronics. Bullcrap. The IEEE guide shows 2 examples of surge suppression. Both use plug-in suppressors. A protector is not protection. Earthing is the protection. A protector is a connecting device to protection. What defines the quality of that protection? How good is the earthing. This religious belief in earthing is not shared by the IEEE for plug-in suppressors. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. They do not work primarily by eathing. Because that violates w_'s religious belief in earthing he can't understand the guide. View current technology protectors that are located where fire danger is greater: With no technical arguments try scare tactics http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about "some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in 1998. And w_ is dishonest when he says these are "current technology protectors". As noted above, his own link said the problem was fixed in 1998. None of the links say there is a problem with current suppressors. None of the links even say the damaged suppressors had a UL label. Protector must be adjacent to earthing AND protector must be distant from those transistors. How distant? Up to 50 meters distant because separation is also part of the protection - and a short connection to earth is essential. The religious belief in earthing #2. The guides contradict everything in this paragraph. Those promoting plug-in protectors must promote half truths. Those promoting plug-in suppressors include the IEEE and NIST. That troll who will arrive to promote for the plug-in industry (and deny it) will be along soon. The troll has already arrived. w_, being evangelical in his belief in earthing, searches google groups for "surge" to paste in his religious tract to convert the heathens. Everyone else here is a regular contributor to this newsgroup. Meanwhile, protection is about earthing. No way around reality. Even the IEEE demands earthing, bluntly, in standards. Religious belief in earthing #3. And the IEEE guide was published by the IEEE. The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors are effective. Provides are the 'whys' that some ignore to promote myths and, well, look at those scary pictures of protectors that meet current standards The lie repeated. For reliable information on surge protection read the IEEE and/or NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. And as always, w_ can't find a link that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you get are his opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
|
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
Bud-- wrote:
This religious belief in earthing is not shared by the IEEE for plug-in suppressors. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. They do not work primarily by eathing. Because that violates w_'s religious belief in earthing he can't understand the guide. So you get a good surge from nearby lightning, and the three wires on your computer's power plug all go to a common-mode voltage plus or minus line voltage. But your ground is bad, so you have a common-mode voltage about 4,000 volts above earth ground. And you're touching the computer, or you have a telephone line plugged into it, or an Ethernet wire from another location, or somehow have one of many other possible and even likely scenarios in which the other end of the person/line is grounded fairly well. 4,000 volts on one end and ground on the other... bring the weenies and marshmallows. Not all the protection is meant for the device plugged into the strip. -- Pork: It's the other white flag! -- James Lileks |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Mar 28, 2:00 pm, clifto wrote:
So you get a good surge from nearby lightning, and the three wires on your computer's power plug all go to a common-mode voltage plus or minus line voltage. But your ground is bad, so you have a common-mode voltage about 4,000 volts above earth ground. And you're touching the computer, or you have a telephone line plugged into it, or an Ethernet wire from another location, or somehow have one of many other possible and even likely scenarios in which the other end of the person/line is grounded fairly well. 4,000 volts on one end and ground on the other... bring the weenies and marshmallows. Not all the protection is meant for the device plugged into the strip. Meanwhile, Bud's own citation shows a TV being destroyed by more voltage - 8000 volts - because of the power strip protector. Bud claims that is proof of an IEEE recommendation when IEEE makes recommendations elsewhere - in Standards. Multiple IEEE Standards define one thing for protection - earthing. Bud provided: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf Go to Adobe page 42 (paper page 33) to see Figure 8. TV2 is destroyed by 8000 volts because earthing was defective and because protector was too far from earthing. 8000 volts on a TV - that is called effective protection? Never was. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
Just Joshin wrote:
I had a few computers die on me, they were old, but taught me a lession. I had to tackle my voltage spikes a few ways. 1. Surge surpressor in the panel. Medium cost. 2. Ensuring proper panel grounding. Few bucks. 3. Point of use surge surpressors. low cost. With all three, I've not had a killed another computer or electronic applicance. So, what can you get from my experience? Tackle each problem head on, don't be cheap and try and get a secondary benifit from another safty device. Good luck. #3 is not necessarily "low-cost." The el-cheapo surge protectors use MOVs to clamp the spikes. Problem is, these MOVs, which act like fuses in reverse, only work once (or a few times). After that, you're unprotected with no indication of the possible peril. Better is a moderately-priced surge protector, ~$50, that has sopisticated electronics instead of MOVs. Look for the ones that guarantee to protect attached loads. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Mar 27, 7:19 am, wrote:
Hi, GFCI's have some surge protection built in to protect them from surges in house wiring. Does this same surge protection extend a bit to protect what is pluged into a GFCI? I guess this may be a dumb question in that I know that there are surge supression receptacles out there, but those ones cost about 2.5 times a GFCI receptacle. Can I get a "cheap" surge supressor in installing a GFCI? Best, mMike. Hi Everyone, Thank you very much for all your kind suggestions. I think I will get myself some Point Surge Protectors. I already have a Lightning system (big copper wires and Franklin Rods), and Surge Arrestors on the Power panels. The ones I was thining of getting were the Leviton 8280-W Duplex Decora Surge Receptacles. They are I think designed for Hospital use and had an alarm to tell you when they no longer protect. I think there is a cap on E-bay selling them for about $US 18-20 each. Thank you again for your kind help. Warmest regards, Mike. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:00 pm, clifto wrote: So you get a good surge from nearby lightning, and the three wires on your computer's power plug all go to a common-mode voltage plus or minus line voltage. But your ground is bad, so you have a common-mode voltage about 4,000 volts above earth ground. And you're touching the computer, or you have a telephone line plugged into it, or an Ethernet wire from another location, or somehow have one of many other possible and even likely scenarios in which the other end of the person/line is grounded fairly well. 4,000 volts on one end and ground on the other... bring the weenies and marshmallows. Not all the protection is meant for the device plugged into the strip. All interconnected devices, like a computer and printer, need to connect to the same surge protector. If a device, like a computer, has external connections like phone, all those wires have to run through the surge suppressor for protection. The voltage on all wires connected through the suppressor (power, phone, cable TV, ...) is clamped to the common ground at the suppressor and the voltages are held to a value that is safe to the connected devices. This is described in both guides. A voltage from the protected equipment to other points is possible, but the guides do not mention it as a practical hazard, and I have not seen it mentioned in any of the other literature I have read. And part of the premise is that the ground wire is bad. Incidentally, at about 6,000 volts there is arc-over in panels or receptacles which limits the maximum voltage appearing between hot, neutral and ground wires. Say you have a service panel surge protector with the service earthed only by a ground rod. There is a surge on the power lines that produces a relatively modest 1,000A earth current. The impedance to earth is a very good 10 ohms. The voltage from the panel to 'absolute' earth is 10,000 Volts. In general about 70% of the voltage drop from a ground rod to 'absolute' earth is in the first 3 feet. From the house power and ground wires to earth beyond 3 feet from the ground rod is 7,000 Volts. With a single point ground most of that voltage will also appear on phone and CATV wires. The differential can appear in the house and can be the same problem. Meanwhile, Bud's own citation shows a TV being destroyed by more voltage - 8000 volts - because of the power strip protector. Bud claims that is proof of an IEEE recommendation when IEEE makes recommendations elsewhere - in Standards. Multiple IEEE Standards define one thing for protection - earthing. You have to be really stupid to say the IEEE would release a guide to the general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards. And the IEEE guide, pdf page 4, makes it absolutely clear that the IEEE guide has been peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE. But w_ must deny the obvious to protect his religious belief in earthing. As the IEEE guide makes clear, plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing. Bud provided: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf Go to Adobe page 42 (paper page 33) to see Figure 8. TV2 is destroyed by 8000 volts because earthing was defective and because protector was too far from earthing. 8000 volts on a TV - that is called effective protection? Never was. A plug-in surge suppressor protects what is plugged in to it. The text clearly says "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." In this particular example, a service panel surge suppressor would not protect either TV because the surge comes in on the CATV wire and there is not a single point ground for incoming power and CATV wires - there would be 10,000V from CATV lead to power wires at both TVs. You can't get a single point ground from the CATV entry ground block to the power service when the CATV entry point is distant from the power service. (Service panel surge suppressors are, however, a good idea.) w_'s objections to plug-in surge suppressors are because they violate his religious belief in earthing. But both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
HeyBub wrote:
Just Joshin wrote: I had a few computers die on me, they were old, but taught me a lession. I had to tackle my voltage spikes a few ways. 1. Surge surpressor in the panel. Medium cost. 2. Ensuring proper panel grounding. Few bucks. 3. Point of use surge surpressors. low cost. With all three, I've not had a killed another computer or electronic applicance. So, what can you get from my experience? Tackle each problem head on, don't be cheap and try and get a secondary benifit from another safty device. Good luck. #3 is not necessarily "low-cost." The el-cheapo surge protectors use MOVs to clamp the spikes. Problem is, these MOVs, which act like fuses in reverse, only work once (or a few times). After that, you're unprotected with no indication of the possible peril. Better is a moderately-priced surge protector, ~$50, that has sopisticated electronics instead of MOVs. Look for the ones that guarantee to protect attached loads. According to the IEEE guide, "the vast majority (90%) of both hard-wired and plug-in protectors use MOVs to perform the voltage-limiting function. In most AC protectors, they are the only significant voltage limiters." MOVs are intrinsically all voltage clamps - when the voltage rises over a characteristic voltage the MOV conducts to try to keep the voltage at that level. They are like back-to–back Zenier diodes. MOVs don’t protect by absorbing energy, but they absorb energy in the process of protecting. A single MOV will have an energy (Joule) rating, say 5000J for argument. If the MOV takes a single hit of 5000J the voltage at which it conducts will decrease by 10% and the MOV is considered to be at end of life. (It will still work, but as it takes more hits the voltage at which it starts to conduct will progressively get lower.) As the energy hit per event goes down, the cumulative total energy the MOV can dissipate goes up. At 5000J per hit the cumulative dissipation is 5000J At 1500J per hit the cumulative dissipation might be 13,000J. At 200J per hit the cumulative dissipation might be 200,000J. Buying a suppressor with a high energy rating gives a much longer life than would be anticipated. With a very high rating, it is not likely a plug-in suppressor will ever ‘wear out’. I believe that is why some of these high energy rating suppressors have a lifetime guarantee on the suppressor. They are also likely to have a guarantee for protected loads. Any decently rated plug-in suppressor will work far more than “a few times”. MOVs are likely to fail by the conduction voltage decreasing until the MOV conducts on normal power and goes into thermal runaway. Since 1998 the UL standard has required MOVs to be disconnected when they overheat. The IEEE guide spends quite a bit of space differentiating between plug–in suppressors that connect the protected load across the MOV, so it will be disconnected with the MOV - or connecting the protected load so it stays live when MOVs are disconnected. In the first case, you will certainly be aware of “possible peril”, and I would recommend it. Far as I know all suppressors have indicator lights that indicate they are functioning. François Martzloff , who was the author of the NIST guide on surges, says that overvoltage is the most frequent cause of failure of surge protectors. The IEEE guide cautions against comparing suppressors based on energy rating because there is no standard its measurement. High energy ratings, however, indicate long life. The IEEE guide gives recommendations for surge current rating. The 3 points of JustJoshing are the same as the IEEE guide. A 4th point is a single point ground - where the entry protectors for cable, phone, dish,... are near the power service panel and connect by short wire to the earthing wire at the power panel. Not having a short connection causes the problems discussed in another post. -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Mar 29, 8:53 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
#3 is not necessarily "low-cost." The el-cheapo surge protectors use MOVs to clamp the spikes. Problem is, these MOVs, which act like fuses in reverse, only work once (or a few times). After that, you're unprotected with no indication of the possible peril. Better is a moderately-priced surge protector, ~$50, that has sopisticated electronics instead of MOVs. Look for the ones that guarantee to protect attached loads. The guaranteed is so chock full of exceptions as to not be honored. One APC guarantee even say protectors also from any other manufacturer void the guarantee. This has been demosntrated by testimoney elsewhere and repeatedly. Protectors, including ones that Bud recommends, use MOVs. When typically undersized, then the naive think a protector did something. One never read manufacturer datasheets; instead promote the myth he heard: MOVs act like fuses. Such reasoning is called 'junk science'. When a protector is undersized as fails catastrophically, then protection already inside the appliance saves that appliance. When undersized, sometimes these scary pictures occur: http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm Little difference between a grocery store protector or one with expensive paint sold for $100+ in Circuit City and Best Buy. They are same protectors; use same circuits. Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 protector parts. Sell it for $20 or $100. Notice why Bud posts incessently? Plug-in protectors are so grossly profitable that promoting myths is essential - customer is only a mark. Bud has just posted: François Martzloff , who was the author of the NIST guide on surges, says that overvoltage is the most frequent cause of failure of surge protectors. Minor point: failure is created by overcurrent which is why surges are rated by their current; not voltage. Bud forgets to mention: Martzloff also says the adjacent plug-in protector can even contribute to appliance damage. Conclusion from that Martzloff IEEE paper: Conclusion: 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances. Martzloff discusses how plug-in protecotrs can create damage "even when or perhaps because" a plug-in protector is present. Why sufficient size it? Its not there for protection. But if undersized - if it only works once, then people such as HeyBub will promote junk science myths. Effective protector shunts even lightning strikes to earth - and remains functions. Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors costs tens of times less money. Responsible organizations, manufatures and industry authors (that even Bud quotes) define protection not in guarantees and not in the protector's price. Protection is defined by its earthing. Again Martzloff: Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed, not result in damage. High-current surges ... are best diverted at the service entrance of the premises. That is a 'whole house' protector or hardwire that connect Cable TV wire 'less than 10 feet' to earth ground (not protector required). Bud claimed a protector absorbs the surge. Reality - 500 joule protector shunts maybe 5,000 or 10,000 joule surges elsewhere and remains functional. They don't protect by absorbing. They shunt. Joules measures the life expectancy of a protector. It says little about how much energy is shunted elswhere. Like high tension power wires, the MOV conducts current elsewhere as long as that current is not too great or too long. Something new from Bud: he is finally admitting this. Protectors - power strip, UPS, and 'whole house' - all feature MOVs. How do you know? Look at its numeric specifications. When selling a scam - the plug-in protector - then installing too few joules gets the naive to promote them as HeyBub demonstrates. Why do many not understand the 'whole house' protector? One reason: 'whole house' protectors are properly sized. They shunt direct lightning strikes to earth AND remain functional. They must not vaporize. Naive would never realize how often protection was provided because the 'whole house' protector does not create those scary pictures - is not so grossly undersized. Bud hopes you don't read and comprehend all 62 pages in his citation. Visit Adobe page 42 (paper page 33) in Bud's citation: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf Figure 8 is a TV damaged by 8000 volts because the MOVs (a power strip protector or UPS) were too close to appliances and too far from eathing. Protectors use MOVs. Protectors promoted only for higher profits are undersized - ie those above scary pictures. Yes, MOVs degrade - and must not vaporize. As Bud now admits, a protector degrades when its voltage changes by 10%. It degrades - remains functional - must not be so grossly undersized as to smoke, vaporize, or catastrophically fail - those scary pictures. But failures including those in scary pictures are how expensive and ineffective plug-in protectors are promoted to the naive. A protector does what? Even the IEEE says what is THE protection - earth ground: IEEE Green Book (Standard 142) 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' : Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed, not result in damage. IEEE Red Book (Standard 141): In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process of interception of lightning produced surges, diverting them to ground, ... Why ground? Because earth is the protection. Effective protector shunts (diverts, clamps, connects) a surge to earth. A protector does not stop what 3 miles of sky could not. And yet that is what a plug- in protector, without earthing, must do ... in direct violation of an IEEE recommendation. IEEE recommendations are only in Standards. Even Martzloff says a plug-in protector can even contribute to appliance damage - as this author saw when studying damage and by performing autopsies of the destruction many decades ago. No earth ground means no effective protection. Guarantee is simply another myth to promote ineffective protectors. How to avoid those scary pictures? Don't use ineffective protectors - ie not dedicated earthing wire. Install and earth one 'whole house' protector. How to make surge protection even better? Enhance that earthing system. Earthing - not the protector - is protection. Earth (not a protector) is where a surge gets absorbed - as noted above by Martzloff, IEEE, and MOV manufacturer datasheets. Who denies this? Promoters of ineffective plug-in protectors who may also deny the scary pictures. A protector sold in a grocery store does same thing as one with the mythical guarantee and excessive dollar price. No 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth? It may even contribute to damage of the adjacent appliance as Figure 8 page 42 from Bud's own citation demonstrates. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Mar 29, 11:50 am, wrote:
Thank you very much for all your kind suggestions. I think I will get myself some Point Surge Protectors. I already have a Lightning system (big copper wires and Franklin Rods), and Surge Arrestors on the Power panels. Remember what a citation from Bud shows on page 43 Figure 8: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf Adjacent TV destroyed by 8000 volts because a plug-in protector was too close AND because earthing was not properly installed. Nothing in your last post says you had any surge protection. Protection requires and is defined by earthing that meets and exceed post 1990 code. Protectors in a breaker box means nothing. One million dollars of protectors in the breaker box and earthing that is too far away means no protection. Your post confuses 'surge arrestor' with protection. It (just like the point of use protector) is not and does not claim to be protection. Each protection layer is only defined by one thing - earthing point. Above discusses secondary protection 'system' - 'whole house' protector that is 'less than 10 feet' to earth. Also inspect your primary protection 'system': http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html Why do others not mention your primary protection 'system' - no profits. Learn from his citation - how plug-in protectors can damage the adjacent appliance in Figure 8. Also inspect what he will not discuss - your primary protection 'system'. BTW, its alarm does not report when the protector has degraded. It reports when a surge has so excessively exceeded manufacturer specs as to vaporize - on the verge of fire - what also creates those scary pictures. How are they made safer for hospitals? They disconnect from AC mains much faster - so that appliance is left to fend for itself. By disconnecting a protector as fast as possible - with the 'first whiff of a surge' - then scary pictures are avoided. Fortunately the appliance already has protection. But now a myth about protector providing protection has been promoted. If alarming, then either you have a fire or the protector cut out long before protection was needed. But again, that is what those scary picture are all about - protectors so grossly undersized as to provide no protection. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
On Mar 29, 8:53 am, "HeyBub" wrote: Look for the ones that guarantee to protect attached loads. The guaranteed is so chock full of exceptions as to not be honored. One APC guarantee even say protectors also from any other manufacturer void the guarantee. This has been demosntrated by testimoney elsewhere and repeatedly. The only testimony provided by w_ was someone who didn’t connect a CATV connection through a suppressor. All wires must including power and CATV have to connect through a suppressor to provide protection. Denial was justified. But w_ cant figure out how plug-in suppressors work. Protectors, including ones that Bud recommends, use MOVs. When typically undersized, then the naive think a protector did something. Under sized is a red herring. Suppressors are readily available with very high ratings. When undersized, sometimes these scary pictures occur: The undersized red herring #2. And lacking any technical arguments w_ uses pathetic scare tactics again. http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm Ho-hum. Repeating: For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about "some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998.” None of these links indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors shouldn't be used. The links do give info on how to use plug-in suppressors. Notice why Bud posts incessently? Plug-in protectors are so grossly profitable that promoting myths is essential - customer is only a mark. I only post to counter w_'s bulllcrap. And I can only quite w_ - "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." Bud forgets to mention: Martzloff also says the adjacent plug-in protector can even contribute to appliance damage. Conclusion from that Martzloff IEEE paper: Conclusion: 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances. w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document: “Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer.” A “surge reference equalizer” is the multiport plug-in surge suppressor discussed elsewhere in this thread and described in both the IEEE and NIST guides. And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug–in suppressors are effective. But if undersized - if it only works once, then people such as HeyBub will promote junk science myths. Undersized red herring #3. Protection is defined by its earthing. Statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide describes plug-in suppressors as working primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. But that violates w_’s religious belief in earthing. To protect his religious beliefs w_ distorts, misquotes and tries to discredit conflicting information. Bud claimed a protector absorbs the surge. Reality - 500 joule protector shunts maybe 5,000 or 10,000 joule surges elsewhere and remains functional. They don't protect by absorbing. They shunt. w_ is an idiot. I said “MOVs don’t protect by absorbing energy, but they absorb energy in the process of protecting.” Joules measures the life expectancy of a protector. It says little about how much energy is shunted elswhere. Like high tension power wires, the MOV conducts current elsewhere as long as that current is not too great or too long. Something new from Bud: he is finally admitting this. w_ just claimed I said protectors absorb the surge. Now I said they don’t. w_ is an idiot. I have never said protectors protect by absorbing energy. But with no technical arguments w_ must misquote and discredit. Bud hopes you don't read and comprehend all 62 pages in his citation. Visit Adobe page 42 (paper page 33) in Bud's citation: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf Figure 8 is a TV damaged by 8000 volts because the MOVs (a power strip protector or UPS) were too close to appliances and too far from eathing. I do hope people will read and comprehend it. It is a description of how a multiport plug-in surge suppressor works. Because it violates his religious belief in earthing w_ can’t comprehend it. The IEEE guide, as well as the NIST guide, says plug-in suppressors are effective. Protectors use MOVs. Protectors promoted only for higher profits are undersized The red herring again #4 As Bud now admits, a protector degrades when its voltage changes by 10%. Yet another stupidity. I have always said degrading is a continuous process with end of life defined as 10% voltage change. A protector does what? Even the IEEE says what is THE protection - earth ground: IEEE Green Book (Standard 142) 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' : IEEE Red Book (Standard 141): Repeating: “You have to be really stupid to say the IEEE would release a guide to the general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards. And the IEEE guide, pdf page 4, makes it absolutely clear that the IEEE guide has been peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE. But w_ must deny the obvious to protect his religious belief in earthing.” And multiport plug-in surge suppressors are a surge protection device in the IEEE Emerald Book "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment". Why ground? Because earth is the protection. Effective protector shunts (diverts, clamps, connects) a surge to earth. A protector does not stop what 3 miles of sky could not. And yet that is what a plug- in protector, without earthing, must do ... in direct violation of an IEEE recommendation. As the IEEE guide explains to anyone who can think, plug–in suppressors work primarily by clamping not earthing or stopping. The IEEE guide says plug–in suppressors are effective. No earth ground means no effective protection. Statement of religious belief in earthing #3. Earthing - not the protector - is protection. Statement of religious belief in earthing #4. as noted above by Martzloff, IEEE, and MOV manufacturer datasheets. MOV manufacturer datasheets describe MOVs - they don’t talk about earthing. Martzloff (paper above and NIST guide) and the IEEE (guide and Emerald book) say plug-in suppressors are effective. There are 98,615,938 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 are misquotes, distortions and w_’s opinions based religious beliefs. -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Mar 30, 4:02 am, Bud-- wrote:
Repeating: "You have to be really stupid to say the IEEE would release a guide to the general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards. And the IEEE guide, pdf page 4, makes it absolutely clear that the IEEE guide has been peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE. But w_ must deny the obvious to protect his religious belief in earthing." And multiport plug-in surge suppressors are a surge protection device in the IEEE Emerald Book "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment". Bud's job is to promote plug-in protectors. Therefore he will lie as necessary to sell more plug-in protectors. Those plug-in protectors don't even claim to provide protection from surges that typically do damage. Anyone can look at those numeric specs. No such claim because it does not provide that protection. Bud alsol never provides a spec sheet that says so. Meanwhile, his own citations describe how plug-in protectors will harm adjacent appliances. IEEE does not recommend what Bud intentionally perverts. IEEE papers warn how his protectors can create damage. IEEE Standards make recommendations. Bud hopes you believe otherwise. Bud will not even requote those Standards because Standards are quite clear; why plug-in protectors are not effective protection: IEEE Red Book (Std 141) recommends protection: In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process of interception of lightning produced surges, diverting them to ground, and by altering their associated wave shapes. Bud's products have no dedicated earthing connection - which is required for effective protectors. So Bud must deny this IEEE requirement - earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection - as even IEEE notes. Bud's protectors are not used where damage must not occur - telephone switching stations, radio and TV stations, 911 emergency response centers, etc. Why do they not use plug-in protectors? They do not waste money on protectors that can even damage adjacent electronics. Bud's own citation Figure 8 shows how ungrounded protectors even destroys a TV. Page 42 (paper page 33) shows TVs being destroyed because of ineffective and so profitable plug-in protector. A kid attaches an Xbox to the TV. Just another path that an adjacent protector may use to damage TVs. The Xbox and TV complete a destructive path to earth - same problem shown in Figure 8. Plug-in protectors include a 'disconnect the protector from AC mains' circuit so that scary pictures do not occur. Disconnect the protector; leave appliance to fend for itself. No problem. Real protection was already inside the appliance anyway. Adjacent protector was there to enrich the manufacturer. Some claim protectors are 'one shot' devices or 'fuses'. Why? If plug-in protection stayed connected, then these scary pictures result- http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm Best to disconnect - blow out fast - so that fire is not an option and so that only appliance internal protecton does all the work. Then the naive will spend more money on 'magic boxes'. Profits - not protection - is the objetive.. Numerous professional sites describe what is necessary for protection - earth ground. One whole day of reading from professionals say what Bud hopes you never learn are listed in in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe" http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA Bud claims his protector will stop what three miles of sky could not. He will post incessantly to deny reality - deny those scary pictures. Bud must deny what his own citations and authors say hoping you will not understand their technical points. Martzloff, who Bud cites often, even says plug-in protectors can contribute to appliance damage - a 1994 Martzloff paper: 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances. Martzloff states in 1993 what is absolutely necessary for protection: Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed, not result in damage. High-current surges ... are best diverted at the service entrance of the premises. Bud is paid to promote myths and spins. Bud needs you to deny what provided protection - earthing. A protector either is a connecting device to earth ground OR is a scam that enriches Bud. Oh. He forgets to mention that part also? Telling half truths is how he operates. As a troll, he follows me everywhere 'cut and pasting' the company lies. He routinely will not quote what the IEEE demands for protection - earth ground. Spinning and lying is Bud's job. Bud even misrepresents IEEE papers that warn about damage created by a plug-in protector. Bud hopes you don't understand how his protectors put those TVs at 8000 volts - destroy the TVs. Why? Surge found earth ground destructly via TVs because surge was not earthed when entering a building - no 'whole house' protector. Without a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth: No earth ground means no effective protection. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
... Bud's job is to promote plug-in protectors. Therefore he will lie as necessary to sell more plug-in protectors. .... This sure sounds like a personal issue. It seems that Bud has suggested some good ideas and supported them with references to accepted authorities like: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf What is the problem here? The accepted non-commercial references you have made don't seem to conflict with what Bud has written. They point out a different limited problem. -- Joseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
More of the same w_ bullcrap repeated. Partly in response to Joseph (sorry about the length): w_ believes surge protection is only possible through earthing. For example: “Protection is defined by its earthing.” “No earth ground means no effective protection.” “Earthing - not the protector - is protection.” “Earth ground is the protection.” Plug-in surge suppressors do not have good earthing connections. So according to w_, plug-in suppressors cannot possibly work. Unfortunately the IEEE guide explains how they work - they clamp the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Because that is not earthing, it is not valid to w_. His belief in earthing is unchallengeable and constitute a religious view. w_ has never posted a link that says plug-in suppressors do NOT work. I have posted 2 very reputable links, the IEEE and NIST, that says plug-in suppressors do work. There are plenty more. (The IEEE link, incidentally, originally came from w_.) w_ is evangelical in his belief and searches with google-groups for “surge” so he can share his drivel on plug-in suppressors. This is at least the 3rd time I have seen w_’s surge drivel on this newsgroup. Not having sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective w_ has to misquote, misconstrue and distort sources or try to discredit. Among them is François Martzloff who was the surge guru at the NIST and has written a lot about surges and surge suppression. w_ takes quotes about earthing out of Martzloff papers where the same paper clearly says plug–in suppressors are effective. In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that says plug-in suppressors are effective. On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ misconstrued the views of 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 surge equalization type [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL." w_ takes quotes about earthing out of IEEE standards, but the IEEE clearly says plug-in suppressors work in the “Emerald Book”, which is a standard, and the IEEE guide. w_ has only his religious belief in earthing and apparently can’t process anything that conflicts with that view (see cognitive disonance). Having no technical arguments w_ manufactures issues. And he frequently posts ‘scary pictures’ that his own sources say were for an old UL standard - those suppressors have not been sold for 9 years. And anyone who disagrees with w_'s religious view must be discredited. Bud's job is to promote plug-in protectors. Therefore he will lie as necessary to sell more plug-in protectors. Bud is paid to promote myths and spins. My only association with surge protectors is that I have two of them. Two posts ago my views were wildly misconstrued w_ argues for ‘whole house protectors’. They are good, and are in both the IEEE and NIST guides, as is grounding and single point ground. BUT THE *ONLY* QUESTION IS WHETHER PLUG-IN SUPPRESSORS ARE EFFECTIVE. If anyone has doubts look at the IEEE guide at: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf and/or the NIST guide at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf Both are have excellent information on surges and surge protection in general. And both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in surge protectors are effective. Then find w_’s sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. There are none. -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Mar 31, 7:34 am, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote: What is the problem here? The accepted non-commercial references you have made don't seem to conflict with what Bud has written. They point out a different limited problem. Bud's NIST pamphlet page 6 states how protection is provided: 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. You tell me. Bud says plug-in protectors have no earth ground AND need no earthing because they 'clamp'. Yes they clamp - which is also called shunt, connect, bond, or divert. Divert to what? NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, etc say earth ground. So Bud plays fast and loose with terms to confuse all. How to divert a surge to earth ground? Clamp, bond, shunt, connect - all mean same. Bud denies this to spin confusion. A surge diverted / clamped / shunted to another wire is simply another path, destructively, through same adjacent appliance. Curious. We engineers found same when damage was autopsied. We traced a surge through a plug-in protector, through destroyed computer ICs, and into earth. Why was computer damaged? Protector had no dedicated earthing. Surge was clamped / shunted to earth destructively through computer. Martzloff warns of the same damage "even when or perhaps because" of plug-in protectors. Quoted are Martzloff's own words. As Bud admits, his protectors have no dedicated earthing wire. As Bud's own citations and authors repeatedly state - earthing provides protection. You don't see a problem? Return to another Bud citation from Mike Holt page 42 Figure 8. How does that TV end up at 8000 volts? A plug-in protector did not have sufficient earthing. Ground wire was too long - too much impedance. Therefore TV is damaged by 8000 volts. As Martzloff notes, an adjacent protector can even contribute to appliance damage. We engineers knew that a decade earlier - because we saw it by doing an engineering analysis. Bud plays fast and loose with reality to promote plug-in protectors. Where is the problem? Bud's own citation says earthing is required. IEEE Standards repeatedly state earthing is required for protection. And Bud admits his own protectors do not earth. Anything that a plug-in protector might accomplish is already inside the appliance. But what a protector must do is shunt / divert / bond / clamp the destructive type of surge to earth ground. Bud even admits his plug-in protectors do not connect to earth. Therefore Bud's recommendations are in direct conflict with his own citations - and the IEEE, and industry professionals, and what has been historically installed for protection even 70 years ago ... The conflict is obvious. Bud lies to promote his defective product line. Meanwhile no earth ground means no effective protection. Which is it? Earthing is not required as Bud promotes? Or earthing provides the protection as NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, Polyphaser, ARRL, US Air Force, US Army, all telephone companies, commercial radio and TV stations, .... all demand earthing for protection. Why? Protector is only as good as earth ground - which Bud must deny for self serving reasons. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Mar 31, 5:53 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:
w_tom is what is commonly referred to as a "usenet kook". Same Charlie attacked another poster for only asked what DSL fiters do? Charlie. He asked whether it was a high pass or low pass filter. You replied, "yes". That was the entire technical reply in a post that mocked that poster. Nothing new in your behavior here. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
.. You tell me. Bud says ... Take a deep breath Tom. Relax and realize that maybe you don't really understand the whole picture. If needed take your meds. -- Joseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Apr 1, 6:49 am, "Joseph Meehan" wrote:
Relax and realize that maybe you don't really understand the whole picture. Joseph - earthing IS the protection. No way around reality. So important that earthing (and not a protector) is why munition igloos are directly struck - and munitions do not explode. Earthing is what makes telephone switching stations - connected to overhead wires - operate during every thunderstorm without damage. In each case, plug- in protectors are not used AND may even contribute to transistor damage. Even the Air Force defines what is necessary for protection: US Air Force Instruction 32-1065 1 Oct 1998 Grounding Systems 15. Surge Protection. 15.1. Entering or exiting metallic power, intrusion detection, communication antenna, and instrumentation lines must have surge protection sized for lightning surges to reduce transient voltages to a harmless level. Install the surge protection as soon as practical where the conductor enters the interior of the facility. Devices commonly used for this include metal oxide varistors, gas tube arresters, and transzorbs. The lines must enter the facility in shielded cables or metallic conduits run underground for at least 15.24 meters (50 feet) from the facility. Where are protectors located? As soon as practical where conductor enters the facility. That is a 'whole house' protector - not a useless plug-in device. Where does the Air Force require plug-in protectors? Never. Air Force does what telcos also do to not have surge damage. Install protectors with shot connection to earth. What happens when a plug-in protector does not disconnect fast enough? Why must the protector circuit disconnect so fast and leave the appliance connected to AC mains? What happens when it does not abandon appliance protection fast enough? http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm Proven solutions come from manufacturers that you know as responsible. GE, Square D, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, and Siemens. Why then would you recommend a sold by manufacturers such as Monster Cable? Why would you recommend a plug-in protector that will not even claim to provide such protection in spec sheets? Even Bud's own citations describe what is necessary for protection - earthing. But even admits his companies protectors do not earth. So where is the protection? Either a surge is shunted (clamped, diverted) or it is absorbed. That's it. Two choices. Joe - you tell me. How does a plug-in protector absorb what 3 miles of sky could not? No wonder Bud's citations show plug-in protector destroying a TV at 8000 volts. But then engineers traced same destruction previously. I personally traced and replaced every IC in the surge path to make the network working again. Bud's plug-in protector earthed a surge, destructively, through computers. Plug-in protector can't divert to what it does not have - earthing. Tell us how Bud's 'magic box' will stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? It cannot shunt (clamp) to earth. So how does it absorb surges? Do you really know this stuff? Good. Then post that 'whole picture' I somehow never learned over so many decades. Don't make unsupported claims as Bud does. If you have another 'whole picture', then post it. Meanwhile what did Orange County FL do to fix repeated surge damage to emergency response facilities? Did they buy plug-in protectors? Of course not. More damage was not acceptable. Orange County fixed the protection; that means earthing: http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm No earth ground means no effective protection. How many whole pictures do you need? A reality denied to sell plug-in devices such as Monster Cable's $100+ products (along with their $60 wire specially designed for speakers). |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:49 am, "Joseph Meehan" wrote: Relax and realize that maybe you don't really understand the whole picture. Joseph - earthing IS the protection. No way around reality. No, it is not THE protection it is one protection, but not the one in question. Earthing or grounding is very important from the standpoint of human safety from an insulation failure, but we are talking about surge issues and protection of the equipment from a short, but very high voltage spike. That voltage is measured between the neutral and the power and does not involve the "ground" While under normal operation the ground and the neutral are the same potential, there are times they are different. Sorry you can't seem to see or understand the difference. -- Joseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
You have not grasped the various type of transients, do not
understand why the IEEE defines what is necessary for protection, and a few other technical facts posted below. Destructive voltages are not between neutral and hot wire. That transient is made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances - and other reasons. Meanwhile, a 'whole house' protector also makes that type transient irrelevant. What does the IEEE demand as necessary for surge protection? IEEE does not discuss differential voltage difference between two wires. That surge is trivial. Protection is about a surge that typically does electronics damage: IEEE Red Book: In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process of interception of lightning produced surges, diverting them to ground, and by altering their associated wave shapes. IEEE Emerald Book (Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment) It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and bonding connections exist among the telephone and data equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding system, and the building grounding electrode system. ... Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement may result in hazardous potential being developed between the telephone (data) equipment ... Learn of many types of transients. To promote their product, plug- in protectors would have you believe all surge types are same. Nonsense. For example, you describe a surge that comes down a black (hot) wire and leaves on neutral (white) wire. This is not the typically destructive surge. Even utility power switching creates another and typically more destructive transient. What happens when a surge comes down any or all black, white, and green wires; and leaves via phone wire, wooden table, linoleum floor tile, or any other conductive material? Latter is the surge that does damage. When it leaves, where does it go? Earth ground. Yes, for typically destructive surges, those otherwise non- conductive items become conductors. Also conductive are church steeple, concrete, or a tree. Items conductive to typically destructive surges are typically not conductive to trivial currents and voltages between two wires. How great is voltage between wires? Wire insulation is only rated for 600 volts. Higher voltages simply cause breakdown - temporarily connect those wires together. But voltages that seek earth are typically 10+ times larger. What kind of surge puts 8000 volts on that TV? Not voltage between two wires. 8000 volts means a surge that seeks earth. Bud's page 42 Figure 8 shows how a TV is damaged by 8000 volts. Why? Destructive surge seeks earth ground; is not between two wires. Because a plug-in protector was too close to TV, then the surge used that TV to obtain what? Earth ground. 8000 volts did not exist between two wires because of where the protector is located. 8000 volts would not exist between two wire if no protector existed. 8000 volts occurred because current is on any or all wires; finding earth destructively via a TV. A destructive type surge seeks earth - is not between two wires. Does a telephone line protector in your NID or in the telco's CO sit between two wires? Of course not. Otherwise the protector could be located anywhere on those wires. But even 1950s protectors were not between wires: http://www.inwap.com/inwap/chez/Phoneline.jpg That protector connects each wire to an earthing ground lug. Each 'carbon' is beneath that hex head - from each phone wire to earthing. Why? Destructive surges with potentially higher voltages seek earth ground; do not seek the other wire. Surges between two wires are made irrelevant for numerous reasons including wire insulation breakdown voltage and by appliance design - an industry standard even 30+ years ago. As demonstrated in a 1959 research project by Bodle and Gresh in the Bell System Technical Journal are hundreds of surges that would harm the CO because the surge seeks earth ground. Surges even on underground wires seek earth ground. If a protector between two wires was sufficient, then that protector could be anywhere on wires. But an effective protector cannot be anywhere. Effective protector is located at the service entrance and connected short to earth ground; as even the Air Force demands. Effective protectors are best located distant from electronics. Telcos define that separation (between protector and electronics) as up to 50 meters. Why? A voltage difference between two wires may be shunted anywhere on those wires. But a surge that seeks earth ground - separation between protector and electronics improves protection. Therefore design of building and location of incoming wires affect how a protection 'system' is installed. From a Sun Microsystem planning guide for server rooms Section 5.4.7: Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can be diverted. The plans for the data center should be thoroughly reviewed to identify any paths for surge entry into the data center. Surge arrestors can be designed into the system to help mitigate the potential for lightning damage within the data center. These should divert the power of the surge by providing a path to ground for the surge energy. Protection should be placed on both the primary and secondary side of the service transformer. It is also necessary to protect against surges through the communications lines. The specific design of the lightning protection system for the data center will be dependent on the design of the building and utilities and existing protection measures. Protection between two wires is completely irrelevant to building design and utility location. But destructive surges to a Sun Server means earthing. Earthing is why building design and utility location is part of that Sun mandated design. To be earthed, building and utility design determines where and how that protector is located. Why? Sun server destructive surges seek earth ground. Sun describes protection for their servers - properly grounded protectors. What does a 'whole house protector connect to? Each wire is not connected to the other wire via protector. Each wire is connected to earth ground. Same as in the 1950s telco protector and in a Sun servier site. Effective protectors connect each wire to earth. Above is a secondary protection 'system' where voltages between wires is irrelevant.. Also inspect the primary protection 'system'. Inspect what in a primary protection 'system'? Well what do typically destructive surges (with maybe ten times higher voltages) seek? http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html How big is that surge between black and white wires? For destructive surges that seek earth ground, a most minimal earthing path is for 50,000 amps. Why 50,000 amps? Protection 'system' is for surges - ie tens of thousands of amps - that may overwhelm protection already inside appliances. Show me a 50,000 amp surge exists between black (hot) and white (neutral) wire? It does not exist. Large current surges seek earth ground. Such surge made trivial by the 'whole house' protector and made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances. Qwest defines what is necessary in their Publication 77355: In a telecommunications environment, the most effective grounding and bonding system is the one with the least amount of impedance. Why low impedance? High current surges that seek earth ground are radio frequency currents. Typically occur in microseconds. What is the most common source of such surges? Microsecond type surges include lightning. And what does lightning seek? Not a voltage difference between two wires. Typically destructive surges - ie lightning - seek one thing: earth ground. For surges between wires - low 'resistance' is sufficient. For surges that do serious damage - ie lightning - low 'impedance' earthing is required. Just another reason why a protector's location (ie 'less than 10 feet' from earth ground) is so essential for surge protection. How many industry professionals need I quote - or do you still listen to a plug-in protector promoter Bud? IEEE is quite blunt what is required for effective protection: earthing. What is the most destructive surge? Lightning. What does it create? Massive currents on any or all wires that seek earth ground. Voltages between wires are so trivial as to be made irrelevant even by appliance design - and other reasons above. There is no major voltage difference between wires. Now I understand why you were so easily decieved by the myths. Your 'threat' is made irrelevant even by protection inside appliances. The short and major spike seeks earth ground - is not between two wires. Please learn the techology. This was common knowledge even long before any of us existed. You are worried about surges that typically do not exist - but are hyped to promote mythical power strip protection. On Apr 2, 6:23 am, "Joseph Meehan" wrote: No, it is not THE protection it is one protection, but not the one in question. Earthing or grounding is very important from the standpoint of human safety from an insulation failure, but we are talking about surge issues and protection of the equipment from a short, but very high voltage spike. That voltage is measured between the neutral and the power and does not involve the "ground" While under normal operation the ground and the neutral are the same potential, there are times they are different. Sorry you can't seem to see or understand the difference. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
You have not grasped the various type of transients, If you car to post a single valid link to a non-commercial authoritative site that supports and explains your views, I will be happy to view it and comment on it. -- Joseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
You have not grasped the various type of transients, do not understand why the IEEE defines what is necessary for protection, and a few other technical facts posted below. Destructive voltages are not between neutral and hot wire. That transient is made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances - and other reasons. Meanwhile, a 'whole house' protector also makes that type transient irrelevant. Seems you are a dummy Joseph. Neither the IEEE or NIST guides consider hot-to-neutral transients irrelevant. If they are irrelevant, ‘whole house’ protectors are irrelevant. What does the IEEE demand as necessary for surge protection? IEEE does not discuss differential voltage difference between two wires. A major hallucination. Please get medical help. IEEE Emerald Book (Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment) etc The Emerald Book has plug-in suppressors among the devices that provide protection. Why are plug-in suppressors in the Emerald Book w_? Learn of many types of transients. To promote their product, plug- in protectors would have you believe all surge types are same. Nonsense. For example, you describe a surge that comes down a black (hot) wire and leaves on neutral (white) wire. This is not the typically destructive surge. Even utility power switching creates another and typically more destructive transient. What happens when a surge comes down any or all black, white, and green wires; and leaves via phone wire, wooden table, linoleum floor tile, or any other conductive material? Latter is the surge that does damage. When it leaves, where does it go? Earth ground. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in surge suppressors should be multi-port. ALL signal and power wires to protected equipment need to run thorough the suppressor. Repeating yet again, the voltage on ALL wires is clamped to the common ground at the surge suppressor. There is no damaging voltage between power and phone wires downstream from the suppressor. The primary protection, as explained in the IEEE guide, is clamping, not earthing. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say that protects the equipment connected to the suppressor. But I guess both the NIST and IEEE forgot about the wood table and linoleum floor. Bud's page 42 Figure 8 shows how a TV is damaged by 8000 volts. Why? Destructive surge seeks earth ground; is not between two wires. It is not my page. It is the IEEE’s page. Trying to extract some meaning from rather illiterate writing - all surges in the illustrations are between 2 wires (or sets of wires). Because a plug-in protector was too close to TV, then the surge used that TV to obtain what? Earth ground. Not according to the text. The IEEE says “the vast majority of the incoming lightning surge current flows through” the earthing wire from the CATV ground block to the power service. The earthing current through the TV or plug–in suppressor is minor according to the IEEE. The surge is earthed, but the earthing is not through the TV or plug-in suppressor. 8000 volts would not exist between two wire if no protector existed. Assuming this means at the 2nd TV, that is true. If there was no plug-in suppressor at the 1st TV, there would not be 8,000V at the 2nd TV, it would be 10,000V. The whole point of this (fig.8) discussion in the IEEE guide is “to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required”. And the point of all of this in the IEEE guide is do explain how plug-in suppressors work. To protect his religious belief in earthing, w_ has to twist the IEEE explanation to say the opposite. Other points the IEEE makes he “If the CATV, satellite, or phone cables do not enter the building near the service entrance, the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector.” It is common to have entry points for phone, CATV or satellite to be distant from the power service. That prevents establishing a “single point ground”. Since CATV entry ground blocks do not limit the voltage from core conductor to shield that voltage, according to the IEEE guide, is only limited to the breakdown voltage of F connectors, typically 2000–4000V. “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.” CATV wires going through a plug-in suppressor will have that voltage limited. There follow lots of quotes. Few are relevant. None say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective. And, as always, no links from w_ that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Only his religious beliefs and distortions of sources. Where are your links? -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Apr 2, 11:31 am, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote: w_tom wrote: You have not grasped the various type of transients, If you car to post a single valid link to a non-commercial authoritative site that supports and explains your views, I will be happy to view it and comment on it. -- Joseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit My favorite part to Tom's usual rant above is this: "What happens when a surge comes down any or all black, white, and green wires; and leaves via phone wire, wooden table, linoleum floor tile, or any other conductive material? Latter is the surge that does damage. When it leaves, where does it go? Earth ground. " In the above, he acknowledges that a surge can come in via the power line and then exit via everything from a phone wire to a wood table. Yet he refuses to acknowledge that it could also leave via a point of use surge protector shunting the surge to ground. And it would seem that would be a much lower impedance path than a wood table. Where Tom goes astray is he starts with good advice, which is that surge protection on the AC panel with a good ground is the most effective and good practice. But then he quickly decends into nonsense, when he claims that point of use protectors offer no protection at all and are actually destructive. Another of his rants that I like is that all appliances have surge protection already built into them. Hmmm, let me think.... What would I rather have get blown due to a surge? The MOV in a $20 plug in protector or the MOV in a $2000 HDTV? Here's some of what UL has to say about surge protectors. They specifically talk about the point of use type, say they rate them and don't say they are ineffective. http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html You're at your home computer when suddenly the lights flicker. Your computer screen fades to black; then copy is restored. Sound familiar? You've just experienced a power surge. Power surges -- also known as transient voltage surges-- are brief spikes of power that can travel through power lines. Power surges can permanently damage computers, televisions, fax machines and other home appliances that contain microprocessors and sensitive electronic components. Many people assume that surge suppressors can protect their home from lightning damage. Surge suppressors are not lightning protection devices - they cannot protect your home or your home's internal electrical wiring from a direct strike. Surge suppressors can, however, protect your equipment from voltage surges caused by unexpected occurrences such as a utility pole downed by a storm. Surges can also generate from inside the home. For instance, appliances such as furnaces, air conditioners and vacuum cleaners can cause power surges in your home's electrical system when turned on or off. And in some cases, remote lightning strikes cans cause surges. However, UL Listed transient voltage surge suppressors (TVSS) can reduce the risk of such damage. The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them; you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some cases, a surge may have a higher energy level than the device can handle. When this happens, the surge suppressor may be damaged and lose its ability to provide protection against future surges. Some surge suppressors look very similar to multiple-outlet power strips but obviously have additional features to suppress surges. Other surge suppressors resemble common plug-in adapters. Not all power strips and adapters offer surge suppression, so make sure the product and product packaging clearly states "UL Listed Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor." UL evaluates surge suppressors for fire, electric shock and personal injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a "suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V. Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection. Whatever surge suppression protection you're looking for, make |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Apr 2, 1:18 pm, wrote:
"What happens when a surge comes down any or all black, white, and green wires; and leaves via phone wire, wooden table, linoleum floor tile, or any other conductive material? Latter is the surge that does damage. When it leaves, where does it go? Earth ground. " In the above, he acknowledges that a surge can come in via the power line and then exit via everything from a phone wire to a wood table. Yet he refuses to acknowledge that it could also leave via a point of use surge protector shunting the surge to ground. And it would seem that would be a much lower impedance path than a wood table. Where Tom goes astray is he starts with good advice, which is that surge protection on the AC panel with a good ground is the most effective and good practice. But then he quickly decends into nonsense, when he claims that point of use protectors offer no protection at all and are actually destructive. Another of his rants that I like is that all appliances have surge protection already built into them. Hmmm, let me think.... What would I rather have get blown due to a surge? The MOV in a $20 plug in protector or the MOV in a $2000 HDTV? Does all of a surge only go down one wire or only down another wire? Of course not. And yet going down only one wire must happen for effective surge protection. Trader, it does not matter if some of a surge takes that path to ground. Most all of it must. That ground wire is only low resistance - not low impedance. Therefore too much surge finds other destructive paths. You are still denying that high impedance even after page 42 Figure 8 shows high impedance - 2000 volts. Surge comes down a black wire seeking what? Earth ground. Surge is shunted from black wire to green wire by protector ... still seeking earth ground. Some surge current uses green 'safety ground' wire to mains breaker box. Some current goes into computer motherboard, through modem, and to earth via phone line. Not all current goes destructively through computer as trader claims. Large current also passed through and destroys modem. Why? All current did not get conducted by a high impedance safety ground wire that is at 2000 volts. Decades ago an adjacent protector earthed a surge destructively through powered off computers - damage proven by following and replacing all damaged ICs. Another unbiased source - Martzloff in an IEEE paper - also warns of same damage "even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances. " Joseph Meehan - repeatedly posted were links to non-commercial authoritative sites such as Martzloff and IEEE. Later you ask for non- commercial citations. Why do you keep asking that question after information is provided? Why the standard denials? trader also does it again. He assumes safety ground wire is a perfect conductor because he does not understand impedance. As an electrician, he confuses resistance with impedance. The non- commercial page 42 Figure 8 shows 2000 volts 'end to end' on that wire. Why? Excessive wire impedance. Because it is not a 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection, too much wire impedance and 2000 destructive volts. trader remains in denial mode? trader cannot grasp this concept: wire impedance. trader - why is the protector in Figure 8 at 2000 and 8000 volts? Why ignore excessive wire impedance even in this 'mike holt' provided figure? But again I say to you - learn about wire impedance. Look at figure 8: why a TV is at 8000 volts. Wire to earth ground is too long, too many sharp bends, splices, etc. Too much impedance means ineffective earthing. So where does that 8000 volts find earth ground? Destructively via an adjacent TV. The non-commercial page 42 Figure 8 again demonstrates Martzloff's problem with plug-in protectors - that can even contribute to appliance damage. Surges can also generate from inside the home. For instance, appliances such as furnaces, air conditioners and vacuum cleaners Same myth was written by an English major in HowStuffWorks. The vacuum cleaner is so destructive that everyone troops to hardware stores weekly to replace clock radios and digital clocks? Oh. Internal protection makes vacuum cleaner 'surges' irrelevant? Exactly. Trader repeatedly posts that claim and I repeatedly reply with this example. Notice how electronics inside a microwave oven are routinely damaged by the furnace? What protected appliances not on a surge protector? Internal protection that was industry standard even 30+ years ago. Why does trader not know of this internal protection even inside HDTVs? But trader says we are all replacing dimmer switches weekly due to damage created by refrigerators. Appliances must contain internal protection. Anything that plug-in protector might accomplish is already inside the appliance. Internal appliance protection demands one properly earth a 'whole house' protector so that internal protection is not overwhelmed. Why does trader deny that internal protection? Trader assumes that protectors fail or vaporize to provide protection. He was provided MOV datasheets that say protectors must not fail. And yet he remains fixated on this 'vaporize' concept. Effective protectors earth lightning strikes and must remain functional. Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors are properly sized. Meanwhile a surge arrives at an HDTV and surge protector. The protector is so grossly undersized as to disconnect as fast as possible - to smoke. HDTV is then left to fend for itself. No problem. HDTV has sufficient internal protection. But the naïve proclaim "a surge protector sacrificed itself to protect my TV". Wrong. A surge too small to harm an HDTV struck both TV and surge protector simultaneously. Only the surge protector was grossly undersized - vaporized - so that the naïve will promote more sales. Surge protectors contain MOVs. MOVS are rated for 8/20 and 10/1000 microsecond waveforms. Why these waveforms? Because MOVs are designed for a surge that creates those waveforms: Lightning. Surge protection is installed so that lightning does not do damage. Protection that also makes other transients irrelevant. But again, trader denies protection already inside appliances - as he denies wire impedance and that 2000 volts - as he denies protectors are for lightning protection - as he denies how an adjacent protector can even contribute to appliance damage. Protectors without that short ('less than 10 foot') connection to a single point earth ground cannot provide protection. A protector is only a connecting device to earth ground. That 'magic box' does not stop what 3 miles of sky could not. Wire impedance is why all telcos install Central Office protectors ON an earth ground AND up to 50 meters distant from electronics. Wire impedance is why Orange County solved surge damage by enhancing the earthing system; did not install plug-in protectors: http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm Wire impedance is why the Air Force requires protector located "as soon as practical where the conductor enters the interior of the facility." Surge protection is about low impedance and a single point earth ground. Effective protectors make that dedicated 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. Plug-in protectors do not make that connection AND do not claim to protect from the type of surges that typically cause damage. What do the typically destructive surges do? Come down any or all wires seeking earth ground, destructively, through appliances. Surge overwhelms protection already inside all appliances. Surge must be earthed before it can enter a building. Effective protectors make the typically destructive surge (which not created by vacuum cleaners) irrelevant. That means a short connection to earth. No earth ground means no effective protection. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Apr 2, 10:53 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
Martzloff in an IEEE paper - also warns of same damage "even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances. " Martzloff said in the same paper "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [mulitport suppressor]." Martzloff consistently says plug-in surge suppressors are effective, as he did in the NIST guide. Joseph Meehan - repeatedly posted were links to non-commercial authoritative sites such as Martzloff and IEEE. Later you ask for non- commercial citations. Why do you keep asking that question after information is provided? Why the standard denials? Because you have NEVER posted a link to a site that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Nor have your quotes from sources ever said plug-in suppressors are not effective. Many of your quotes are from sources that, in fact, said plug-in suppressors are effective, like the IEEE guide, and Martzloff above. trader cannot grasp this concept: wire impedance. trader - why is the protector in Figure 8 at 2000 and 8000 volts? Why ignore excessive wire impedance even in this 'mike holt' provided figure? But again I say to you - learn about wire impedance. Look at figure 8: why a TV is at 8000 volts. Wire to earth ground is too long, too many sharp bends, splices, etc. Too much impedance means ineffective earthing. So where does that 8000 volts find earth ground? Destructively via an adjacent TV. The non-commercial page 42 Figure 8 again demonstrates Martzloff's problem with plug-in protectors - that can even contribute to appliance damage. A readers guide to w_'s rant: w_ refers to the IEEE guide, not 'mike holt'. The figure shows a surge on a CATV source with 2 TVs connected. TV1 is protected by a plug-in surge suppressor. 2000V does not appear at the TVs. The plug-in suppressor at TV1 did NOT contribute to damage, but reduced the voltage at TV2 from 10,000V to 8,000V. But the point of the figure is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required". The IEEE says the earthing path for the surge is not through the TVs or branch circuit. "The vast majority of the incoming lightning surge current flows through" the earthing wire from the CATV ground block to the power service. This figure part of the IEEE guide explanation of how plug-in suppressors work. But the explanation violates w_'s religious beliefs in earthing. Other points the IEEE makes he "If the CATV, satellite, or phone cables do not enter the building near the service entrance, the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." It is common to have entry points for phone, CATV or satellite to be distant from the power service. That prevents establishing a "single point ground". Since CATV entry ground blocks do not limit the voltage from core conductor to shield, that voltage, according to the IEEE guide, is only limited to the breakdown voltage of F connectors, typically 2000-4000V. "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." CATV wires going through a plug-in suppressor will have that voltage limited. Meanwhile a surge arrives at an HDTV and surge protector. The protector is so grossly undersized as to disconnect as fast as possible - to smoke. HDTV is then left to fend for itself. No problem. HDTV has sufficient internal protection. But the naïve proclaim "a surge protector sacrificed itself to protect my TV". Wrong. A surge too small to harm an HDTV struck both TV and surge protector simultaneously. Only the surge protector was grossly undersized - vaporized - so that the naïve will promote more sales. Only the naive would buy a surge suppressor that is grossly undersized. Suppressors with very high ratings are readily available. Only the naive would post an argument requiring a grossly undersized suppressor. Only the naive would think a HDTV could handle any surge that hits it. Protectors without that short ('less than 10 foot') connection to a single point earth ground cannot provide protection. A protector is only a connecting device to earth ground. That 'magic box' does not stop what 3 miles of sky could not. The religious belief in earthing. As explained by the IEEE guide, plug in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the surge suppressor, not earthing or stopping. So may words, so little that is minimal relevant to plug-in suppressors. The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective. And w_ still can't find a link that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Apr 3, 12:12 pm, "bud--" wrote:
... More standard 'cut and paste' replies from Bud as he follows me everywhere - as a troll - to promote grossly overpriced and unearthed protectors. What does a protector do? Connects surges to earth ground. Earth provides protection when a surge does not and need not enter the building. Bud's page 42 Figure 8 shows exactly what a protector does. No classic and necessary 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. So it earthed a surge - 8000 volts - destructively through a TV. But then the protector did as designed. Protectors only connect surges to earth. Protector simply connected that surge to earth, destructively, via a TV. Same problem exists when a kid connects an Xbox to a TV. Bud's reply: you must teach the kid how to connect his Xbox. So it is the kid's fault if damage occured - because Bud's ineffective protector was used? Yes, according to Bud. Responsible manufacturers provide effective solutions. Products from GE, Siemens, Square D, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton and other responsible manufacturers are found in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Bud will lie incessantly in fear. He will deny that some of these sufficiently sized products can be found in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. He fears you might discover how much less expensive that effective solution is. Bud's own citations define what is required of a protector: 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. As demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8 in http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ublishedversio... No earth ground means no effective protection Effective 'whole house' protectors properly earthed 'less than 10 feet' mean all protection inside all TVs (and all other household appliances - even smoke detectors and bathroom GFCIs) are not overwhelmed. But if you learn this, then Bud's income may be harmed. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
Just a repetition of the same bullcrap. For reliable information the IEEE guide on surges and suppression at: http://tinyurl.com/2qrszf and the NIST guide at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf are recommended. Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Where are your links links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective w_? There should be thousands of them. Why should anyone believe you if you can't find links that support your views? -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Apr 4, 3:39 am, Bud-- wrote:
Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Where are your links links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective w_? Bud's own citations demonstrate why real world protector manufacturers sell 'whole house' protectors. How to identify a real world protector? 1) Product has the dedicated earthing wire for that 'less than 10 foot' connection. 2) Manufacturer discusses earthing. Bud who promotes for a 'mythical protector' manufacturer will not even deny his own citations. Bud has posted in hundreds of posts how earthing is not required - how his 'magic box' protector will somehow stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not. And so we go to his own citations where a plug-in protector puts 8000 volts through the adjacent TV. He cannot even dispute that a kid with an Xbox may completely compromise 'plug-in' protection. Bud says we must educated kids so damage is not created when they connect that Xbox. Bud says we must install $2000 or $3000 of plug- in protectors - one on every appliance - so that the damage on page 42 Figure 8 does not happen. What do real world protector manufacturers do for less money? They install and earth one 'whole house' protector. A solution even sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. A solution not provided by manufacturers such as Monster Cable. Responsible manufacturers that sell 'whole house' protectors are Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Leviton, GE, Intermatic, Siemens and others. Where in that list are plug-in protector manufacturers such as Monster Cable? Well responsible manufacturers don't sell 'magical' speaker wire for $60 either. But Bud recommend thousands of dollars of plug-in protectors just so one protector does not 8000 volts destroy the adjacent TV - as on page 42 Figure 8. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:39 am, Bud-- wrote: Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Where are your links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective w_? Links still not shown. Where are your links? How to identify a real world protector? 1) Product has the dedicated earthing wire for that 'less than 10 foot' connection. 2) Manufacturer discusses earthing. Ho-hum - the religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressors. They do not work primarily by earthing. Bud who promotes for a 'mythical protector' manufacturer will not even deny his own citations. Ho-hum again. Repeating: “And I can only quite w_ - ‘It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger.’ ”. Bud has posted in hundreds of posts how earthing is not required Bullcrap. I recommend reading the IEEE guide which includes earthing as one of the major protection methods. I *repeat* the explanation in the IEEE guide – plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing. how his 'magic box' protector will somehow stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not. How stupid. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. And so we go to his own citations where a plug-in protector puts 8000 volts through the adjacent TV. Ho-hum #3 - already covered. The plug-in suppressor *reduced* the surge voltage at another TV, but the IEEE says "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required". Apparently too technical for w_. A solution even sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. In a thread a few days ago 2 people looked at online sites and found: Lowes had NO ‘whole house’ suppressors. Home Depot had no ‘whole house’ suppressors near $50. The 2 suppressors available had no specs available from Home Depot or the manufacturer. Both the IEEE and NIST say plug-in suppressors are effective. And still missing - links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Could it be nobody agrees with you w_? Where are your links? And include a link for the $50 ‘whole house’ suppressor. -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Apr 5, 12:08 pm, Bud-- wrote:
In a thread a few days ago 2 people looked at online sites and found: Lowes had NO 'whole house' suppressors. Home Depot had no 'whole house' suppressors near $50. The 2 suppressors available had no specs available from Home Depot or the manufacturer. Both the IEEE and NIST say plug-in suppressors are effective. Bud knows because he saw it on the web. 'Whole house' protectors from responsible manufacturers have sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50 for years now. Bud knows that cannot be true because he did not see it on the web. If he actually did this stuff, then he might discover 'whole house' protectors - some selling for less than $50. But that would harm sales of ineffective plug-in protectors. Easier is to lie and deny. How ineffective? Bud's various IEEE and NIST citations state a protector must connect to ground. Protectors work by grounding surges: 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. Bud admits his protectors have no ground. So he denies earthing is necessary. What do IEEE Standards (IEEE Red Book, Emerald Book, etc) repeatedly define necessary? Earthing. What happens when earth ground is too far away? Page 42 Figure 8 shows a protector earthing a surge - 8000 volts destructively - via an adjacent TV. Bud says this damage will not happen with $2000 or $3000 more protectors for virtually every household appliance. $50 for one properly sized 'whole house' protector or $3000 that may also create those scary pictures. Spend many thousands of dollars and still suffer surge damage because a kid connects his Xbox to a TV? Yes, that is what Bud called effective protection. Bud ignores Page 42 Figure 8 from his own citation. His own citations shows damage to household appliance created by the plug-in protector Another of his citations say: Conclusion: 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances. Informed consumers install what is also standard where direct lightning strikes routinely do no damage. They earth. One 'whole house' protector earths for ALL household appliances. Protector not located on flammable rugs or desktops that would do this - the scary pictures: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html No earth ground means no effective protection. But if a plug-in protector cost more money, then it must work better - to enrich plug- in manufacturers. And so the troll Bud who follows me everywhere will post more denials. Cites are quotes from his own citations. Even his own citations say earthing is necessary. To promote profitable plug- in protectors, Bud must even deny 'whole house' protectors in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
w_tom wrote:
No earth ground means no effective protection. The religious belief in earth ground - because plug-in suppressors do not work by earthing, for w_ they cannot possibly work. But the IEEE guide explains they primarily work by clamping. Nothing new - the same drivel. Attempts again to take 2 sources that say plug–in suppressors are effective and make them say the opposite. w_ still can’t find the mythical $50 ‘whole house suppressor’ - if they exist provide a link - why should anyone think they exist. And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors are NOT effective - except w_. w_ is a purveyor of junk science. But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective. Anyone can read the sources. -- bud-- |
Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?
On Apr 6, 11:21 am, Bud-- wrote:
And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors are NOT effective - except w_. w_ is a purveyor of junk science. Even quotes from Bud's citations show on page 42 Figure 8 how a plug- in protector can create damage to the adjacent TV. Another citation defines what is necessary for protection - earth ground: 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. Bud says plug-in protectors don't require earthing. Somehow they will instead protect by 'clamping'. Well that is not what his own citations say. Meanwhile all appliances, including GFCIs, contain protection. Protection that can be overwhelmed if a surge is not earthed where it enters a building. Properly earth a surge at the breaker box and internal protection inside all household appliances is not overwhelmed. So what is required to make the 'whole house' protector so effective? Earthing that both meets and exceeds post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. Bud's own citations define earthing as essential to protection. IEEE Standards define earthing for protection. Bud now replies by 'attacking the messenger'. He cannot deny Page 42 Figure 8 - his own citation that shows a plug-in protector creating 8000 volts damage to an adjacet TV. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter