I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners.
These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the
plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North
East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and
brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge
protectors of the newer units. My question is it is okay to use a
good off the shelf single outlet surge protector on these large units
and if so, is it worth it or do they really not do anything. Below is
a link to the one I was considering from Radio Shack. Regards and
thanks to all for your help.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=search

"Atari26004Fun" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners.
These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the
plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North
East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and
brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge
protectors of the newer units. My question is it is okay to use a
good off the shelf single outlet surge protector on these large units
and if so, is it worth it or do they really not do anything. Below is
a link to the one I was considering from Radio Shack. Regards and
thanks to all for your help.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=search


Are you refering to the GFI protector that is now on all plug-in air
conditioners? I've never heard of an A/C unit with built-in surge
protection. All it really needs is a good ground path.

"Atari26004Fun" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners.
These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the
plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North
East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and
brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge
protectors of the newer units. My question is it is okay to use a
good off the shelf single outlet surge protector on these large units
and if so, is it worth it or do they really not do anything. Below is
a link to the one I was considering from Radio Shack. Regards and
thanks to all for your help.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=search


Surge protections is mostly for electronics, circuit boards and the like.
The 24k AC is probably 240V and I don't know of any off the shelf units that
would work with it. Be sure it has the amp rating that is the same or
greater than the receptacle you are plugging into. I've run room ACs for
the past 40 years and never had a surge problem, doubt you would too.

FWIW, the plugs I'm aware of are ground fault, not surge protection.

On Nov 8, 5:00 pm, Atari26004Fun wrote:
I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners.
These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the
plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North
East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and
brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge
protectors of the newer units.

What are you trying to protect from? A surge protector does zero
for brownouts - despite others who recommend surge protectors for
brownouts.

Did you notice how that protector is wire? Connects the air
conditioner to the adjacent receptacle - and the protection circuit
does not change. Air conditioner connects directly to AC mains either
way - even through that protector. So what is that protector doing?

Any protection that might work on its power cord is already inside
the air conditioner. The plug-in device adds nothing. But it uses
the words 'surge' and 'protector'; therefore it must do something?
You are being sold on science based in 'word association'.

Do you believe that protector stops what three miles of sky could
not? It must to stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors don't
stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors shunt (divert, connect,
clamp) surges to earth. An earthed surge will not enter a building to
find your air conditioner. That earthing connection must be short
(ie. 'less than 10 feet').

If your air conditioner needs a protector, then critical items need
a protection more desperately. GFCIs in the kitchen. Each smoke
detector. Your furnace. GFCIs in each bathroom. Alarm system.
Other items equally as critical to an air conditioner include
dishwasher, microwave, clock radios, washer, expensive electric tools,
dimmer switches, dryer, each ceiling fan, electronically controlled
iron, ... You need maybe $2000 in plug-in protectors. Since that
protector does not have the dedicated earth ground connection, it also
does not even claim to provide protection from each type of surge.
Did they forget to mention each type of surge? Why?

If an air conditioner needs surge protection, then you need a surge
protector that actually provides protection from all types of surges
AND has a dedicated connection to earth. A surge that does not enter
the building will not overwhelm existing protection inside all those
appliances. An effective protector is sold by responsible companies
such as Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, GE, and
others. Radio Shack is not on that list. Radio Shack solution has not
dedicated earthing wire; does not even discuss earth ground. Show me
where Radio Shack lists each type of surge and numbers for the
protection? It does not. So what is it protecting?


Take that $2 plug assembly. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for
$18? With a price markup that high, then why mention it only protects
from a type of surge that does not typically cause damage. Profits
are too high to be honest.

If that air conditioner needs protection, then so does everything
else. Effective protector with the dedicated earthing wire means
protection even for much more important smoke detectors at about $1
per appliance - 18 times less money. When do you most need those
smoke detectors? During the rare and destructive surge.

Responsible engineering sources cite earthing as essential for surge
protection. So protection 'system' don't even have a surge protector
(ie cable TV) but all must have the earth ground connection. Same
thing makes Ben Franklin's lightning rods effective. Earth ground.
Protector only connects surges to earth. Earth is where all that
energy is dissipated without harm. No earth ground? No effective
protection. Your household earthing must be upgraded to meet and
exceed post 1990 NEC requirements if surges are to not enter a
building.

Get your earthing upgrades because earthing provides the
protection. Then install one 'whole house' protector to make that
'less than 10 foot' earthing connection. Spend less money. Have
protection from the type of surge that actually harms appliances. A
surge that does not enter the building will not overwhelm protection
that is already inside all appliances.

According to Atari26004Fun :
I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners.
These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the
plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North
East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and
brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge
protectors of the newer units. My question is it is okay to use a
good off the shelf single outlet surge protector on these large units
and if so, is it worth it or do they really not do anything. Below is
a link to the one I was considering from Radio Shack. Regards and
thanks to all for your help.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=search

It'd help to see the specifications for the newer units with the
"surge protection", because I'm having a hard time understanding
why they'd bother, and am wondering whether it's GFCI or something
else other than "surge protection" that they have.

Motors are generally immune to surges/spikes. High load motors
like A/Cs won't like deep brownouts, but a surge protector can't
protect against that. To protect a device against brownouts, you
have to turn _off_ the power (or the motor) when the voltage drops
too far. That's not what surge suppressors do, and turning off
the motor has to be deeply integrated into the A/C.

Tho, I suppose, if your A/Cs have lots of semi-conductor electronics
in them (timers, clocks, etc), it might help. Most A/Cs have very
little electronics in them - just a thermostat controlling a switch,
set point stuff (mostly mechanical), and the compressor motor itself.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On Nov 8, 10:10 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Nov 8, 5:00 pm, Atari26004Fun wrote:

I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners.
These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the
plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North
East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and
brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge
protectors of the newer units.

What are you trying to protect from? A surge protector does zero
for brownouts - despite others who recommend surge protectors for
brownouts.

Did you notice how that protector is wire? Connects the air
conditioner to the adjacent receptacle - and the protection circuit
does not change. Air conditioner connects directly to AC mains either
way - even through that protector. So what is that protector doing?

Any protection that might work on its power cord is already inside
the air conditioner. The plug-in device adds nothing. But it uses
the words 'surge' and 'protector'; therefore it must do something?
You are being sold on science based in 'word association'.

Do you believe that protector stops what three miles of sky could
not? It must to stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors don't
stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors shunt (divert, connect,
clamp) surges to earth. An earthed surge will not enter a building to
find your air conditioner. That earthing connection must be short
(ie. 'less than 10 feet').

If your air conditioner needs a protector, then critical items need
a protection more desperately. GFCIs in the kitchen. Each smoke
detector. Your furnace. GFCIs in each bathroom. Alarm system.
Other items equally as critical to an air conditioner include
dishwasher, microwave, clock radios, washer, expensive electric tools,
dimmer switches, dryer, each ceiling fan, electronically controlled
iron, ... You need maybe $2000 in plug-in protectors. Since that
protector does not have the dedicated earth ground connection, it also
does not even claim to provide protection from each type of surge.
Did they forget to mention each type of surge? Why?

If an air conditioner needs surge protection, then you need a surge
protector that actually provides protection from all types of surges
AND has a dedicated connection to earth. A surge that does not enter
the building will not overwhelm existing protection inside all those
appliances. An effective protector is sold by responsible companies
such as Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, GE, and
others. Radio Shack is not on that list. Radio Shack solution has not
dedicated earthing wire; does not even discuss earth ground. Show me
where Radio Shack lists each type of surge and numbers for the
protection? It does not. So what is it protecting?

Take that $2 plug assembly. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for
$18? With a price markup that high, then why mention it only protects
from a type of surge that does not typically cause damage. Profits
are too high to be honest.

If that air conditioner needs protection, then so does everything
else. Effective protector with the dedicated earthing wire means
protection even for much more important smoke detectors at about $1
per appliance - 18 times less money. When do you most need those
smoke detectors? During the rare and destructive surge.

Responsible engineering sources cite earthing as essential for surge
protection. So protection 'system' don't even have a surge protector
(ie cable TV) but all must have the earth ground connection. Same
thing makes Ben Franklin's lightning rods effective. Earth ground.
Protector only connects surges to earth. Earth is where all that
energy is dissipated without harm. No earth ground? No effective
protection. Your household earthing must be upgraded to meet and
exceed post 1990 NEC requirements if surges are to not enter a
building.

Get your earthing upgrades because earthing provides the
protection. Then install one 'whole house' protector to make that
'less than 10 foot' earthing connection. Spend less money. Have
protection from the type of surge that actually harms appliances. A
surge that does not enter the building will not overwhelm protection
that is already inside all appliances.

Thank you all for your help. This was certainly an education for me.
Yes, I looked and you are all right that it is a built-in GFI
protector, not a surge protector. The only reason I asked is because
the retailer I bought these from said to get one when I went back and
said I had the old style plugs. Apparently this was not good advice
and I'm glad I checked here first. Again, many thanks to you all.
Regards.

On Nov 9, 9:20 am, Atari26004Fun wrote:
On Nov 8, 10:10 pm, w_tom wrote:





On Nov 8, 5:00 pm, Atari26004Fun wrote:

I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners.
These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the
plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North
East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and
brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge
protectors of the newer units.

What are you trying to protect from? A surge protector does zero
for brownouts - despite others who recommend surge protectors for
brownouts.

Did you notice how that protector is wire? Connects the air
conditioner to the adjacent receptacle - and the protection circuit
does not change. Air conditioner connects directly to AC mains either
way - even through that protector. So what is that protector doing?

Any protection that might work on its power cord is already inside
the air conditioner. The plug-in device adds nothing. But it uses
the words 'surge' and 'protector'; therefore it must do something?
You are being sold on science based in 'word association'.

Do you believe that protector stops what three miles of sky could
not? It must to stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors don't
stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors shunt (divert, connect,
clamp) surges to earth. An earthed surge will not enter a building to
find your air conditioner. That earthing connection must be short
(ie. 'less than 10 feet').

If your air conditioner needs a protector, then critical items need
a protection more desperately. GFCIs in the kitchen. Each smoke
detector. Your furnace. GFCIs in each bathroom. Alarm system.
Other items equally as critical to an air conditioner include
dishwasher, microwave, clock radios, washer, expensive electric tools,
dimmer switches, dryer, each ceiling fan, electronically controlled
iron, ... You need maybe $2000 in plug-in protectors. Since that
protector does not have the dedicated earth ground connection, it also
does not even claim to provide protection from each type of surge.
Did they forget to mention each type of surge? Why?

If an air conditioner needs surge protection, then you need a surge
protector that actually provides protection from all types of surges
AND has a dedicated connection to earth. A surge that does not enter
the building will not overwhelm existing protection inside all those
appliances. An effective protector is sold by responsible companies
such as Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, GE, and
others. Radio Shack is not on that list. Radio Shack solution has not
dedicated earthing wire; does not even discuss earth ground. Show me
where Radio Shack lists each type of surge and numbers for the
protection? It does not. So what is it protecting?

Take that $2 plug assembly. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for
$18? With a price markup that high, then why mention it only protects
from a type of surge that does not typically cause damage. Profits
are too high to be honest.

If that air conditioner needs protection, then so does everything
else. Effective protector with the dedicated earthing wire means
protection even for much more important smoke detectors at about $1
per appliance - 18 times less money. When do you most need those
smoke detectors? During the rare and destructive surge.

Responsible engineering sources cite earthing as essential for surge
protection. So protection 'system' don't even have a surge protector
(ie cable TV) but all must have the earth ground connection. Same
thing makes Ben Franklin's lightning rods effective. Earth ground.
Protector only connects surges to earth. Earth is where all that
energy is dissipated without harm. No earth ground? No effective
protection. Your household earthing must be upgraded to meet and
exceed post 1990 NEC requirements if surges are to not enter a
building.

Get your earthing upgrades because earthing provides the
protection. Then install one 'whole house' protector to make that
'less than 10 foot' earthing connection. Spend less money. Have
protection from the type of surge that actually harms appliances. A
surge that does not enter the building will not overwhelm protection
that is already inside all appliances.

Thank you all for your help. This was certainly an education for me.
Yes, I looked and you are all right that it is a built-in GFI
protector, not a surge protector. The only reason I asked is because
the retailer I bought these from said to get one when I went back and
said I had the old style plugs. Apparently this was not good advice
and I'm glad I checked here first. Again, many thanks to you all.
Regards.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By the way, since we're on the topic, what does the built-in GFI
protector do? Should I have the outlets changed to one with GFI
protection, but they are single dedicted line outlets. Is it really
that important. Thanks.

On Nov 9, 9:29 am, Atari26004Fun wrote:
On Nov 9, 9:20 am, Atari26004Fun wrote:





On Nov 8, 10:10 pm, w_tom wrote:

On Nov 8, 5:00 pm, Atari26004Fun wrote:

I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners.
These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the
plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North
East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and
brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge
protectors of the newer units.

What are you trying to protect from? A surge protector does zero
for brownouts - despite others who recommend surge protectors for
brownouts.

Did you notice how that protector is wire? Connects the air
conditioner to the adjacent receptacle - and the protection circuit
does not change. Air conditioner connects directly to AC mains either
way - even through that protector. So what is that protector doing?

Any protection that might work on its power cord is already inside
the air conditioner. The plug-in device adds nothing. But it uses
the words 'surge' and 'protector'; therefore it must do something?
You are being sold on science based in 'word association'.

Do you believe that protector stops what three miles of sky could
not? It must to stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors don't
stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors shunt (divert, connect,
clamp) surges to earth. An earthed surge will not enter a building to
find your air conditioner. That earthing connection must be short
(ie. 'less than 10 feet').

If your air conditioner needs a protector, then critical items need
a protection more desperately. GFCIs in the kitchen. Each smoke
detector. Your furnace. GFCIs in each bathroom. Alarm system.
Other items equally as critical to an air conditioner include
dishwasher, microwave, clock radios, washer, expensive electric tools,
dimmer switches, dryer, each ceiling fan, electronically controlled
iron, ... You need maybe $2000 in plug-in protectors. Since that
protector does not have the dedicated earth ground connection, it also
does not even claim to provide protection from each type of surge.
Did they forget to mention each type of surge? Why?

If an air conditioner needs surge protection, then you need a surge
protector that actually provides protection from all types of surges
AND has a dedicated connection to earth. A surge that does not enter
the building will not overwhelm existing protection inside all those
appliances. An effective protector is sold by responsible companies
such as Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, GE, and
others. Radio Shack is not on that list. Radio Shack solution has not
dedicated earthing wire; does not even discuss earth ground. Show me
where Radio Shack lists each type of surge and numbers for the
protection? It does not. So what is it protecting?

Take that $2 plug assembly. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for
$18? With a price markup that high, then why mention it only protects
from a type of surge that does not typically cause damage. Profits
are too high to be honest.

If that air conditioner needs protection, then so does everything
else. Effective protector with the dedicated earthing wire means
protection even for much more important smoke detectors at about $1
per appliance - 18 times less money. When do you most need those
smoke detectors? During the rare and destructive surge.

Responsible engineering sources cite earthing as essential for surge
protection. So protection 'system' don't even have a surge protector
(ie cable TV) but all must have the earth ground connection. Same
thing makes Ben Franklin's lightning rods effective. Earth ground.
Protector only connects surges to earth. Earth is where all that
energy is dissipated without harm. No earth ground? No effective
protection. Your household earthing must be upgraded to meet and
exceed post 1990 NEC requirements if surges are to not enter a
building.

Get your earthing upgrades because earthing provides the
protection. Then install one 'whole house' protector to make that
'less than 10 foot' earthing connection. Spend less money. Have
protection from the type of surge that actually harms appliances. A
surge that does not enter the building will not overwhelm protection
that is already inside all appliances.

Thank you all for your help. This was certainly an education for me.
Yes, I looked and you are all right that it is a built-in GFI
protector, not a surge protector. The only reason I asked is because
the retailer I bought these from said to get one when I went back and
said I had the old style plugs. Apparently this was not good advice
and I'm glad I checked here first. Again, many thanks to you all.
Regards.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

By the way, since we're on the topic, what does the built-in GFI
protector do? Should I have the outlets changed to one with GFI
protection, but they are single dedicted line outlets. Is it really
that important. Thanks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A GFCI cuts off the current when it detects a small difference in
current between the hot and neutral on the loads it is protecting.
The currents should be equal. If they are not, it indicates there is
some other path the current is taking, ie to ground through a fault.
It does this so fast and with such a small current, that it protects
YOU from being that ground fault path. For example, if you took a
wet hair dryier in one hand and grabbed a faucet with another, a
regular circuit breaker would not do anyting until the total current
exceeded the limit of that breaker, eg 15, 20 amps etc. You'd be
dead by then. The GFCI opens very fast with only a few milliamps of
current flowing to ground, thereby preventing you from getting
electrocuted. That' why they are required in baths, kitchens,
outside, etc.

I wouldn't worry about one for an air conditioner. Just make sure it
has a proper ground. You can buy a simple plug in outlet tester that
will tell you if the outlet is wired properly, has a ground, etc.

According to :

I wouldn't worry about one for an air conditioner. Just make sure it
has a proper ground. You can buy a simple plug in outlet tester that
will tell you if the outlet is wired properly, has a ground, etc.

It's probably true that A/Cs are a little more likely to have
certain kinds of ground faults (eg: as a result of condensation)
than many other devices. Given their size and that they're mostly
metal, the likelyhood of experiencing a shock if a fault occurs
will be higher than with most other things.

Similarly with refrigerators - it's not at all unusual for
old fridges to have ground faults. However, they're less likely
to put GFCI on fridges, because the consequences of a false trip
are rather worse than with an A/C.

If the OP does plan on GFCI'ing the A/Cs, he has several options:

- GFCI breaker
- GFCI outlet
- GFCI "cord".

The latter two are really only applicable to plug-in 120V A/Cs.
A 120V GFCI outlet is $10. A GFCI "cord" is typically about
$25, and doesn't require changing any permanent wiring (no
"installation"). It's just a short extension cord with a GFCI
in it.

If you do go with the "GFCI cord" approach, make sure that the
wire itself is at least 14ga or 12ga (depending on whether
the AC is 12A or 16A).

A GFCI breaker could set you back anywhere from about $20 to
$200 (_not_ including installation), depending on the panel,
the amperage and whether it's 120V or 240V. 240V GFCI breakers
can sometimes be hideously expensive.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

On Nov 9, 9:29 am, Atari26004Fun wrote:
By the way, since we're on the topic, what does the built-in GFI
protector do? Should I have the outlets changed to one with GFI
protection, but they are single dedicted line outlets. Is it really
that important.

Details are posted by trader4. To summarize what he has posted:
GFCI is for human protection; not for air conditioner protection.

Next month means live Christmas trees. From another's personal
experience, if a Christmas tree catches fire, you have 5 minutes to
empty the house. In that Christmas tree fire, humans barely escaped;
all pets were killed.

Another electrical protection device is called an AGFI. This is a
GFI now required for all bedrooms. It detects electric arcing; cuts
off power before a fire can occur. In that example, the wife saw
sparks ignite the tree when she powered on its lights. That arcing
would have been quashed by an AGFI. IOW the circuit that powers a
live Christmas tree should have an Arc Fault Detecting Ground Fault
Interrupter. A newer type of GFCI that also quashes electrical arcs.
Available in any electrical supply or hardware store. Unfortunately I
have never found a plug-in version - and don't know why. Even GFCIs
are found on some extension cords - especially those used by plumbers.

AGFIs are required on all bedroom circuits after 2002. But
experience demonstrates why an AGFI is strongly recommended for the
circuit that powers a Christmas tree. Again, its purpose is to
protect humans.

w_tom wrote:


Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
And one from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

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



Any protection that might work on its power cord is already inside
the air conditioner. The plug-in device adds nothing.

Complete nonsense.

But it uses
the words 'surge' and 'protector'; therefore it must do something?
You are being sold on science based in 'word association'.

Geez - it even fooled the IEEE and NIST. Both guides say plug-in
suppressors are effective.


Do you believe that protector stops what three miles of sky could
not? It must to stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors don't
stop or absorb surges.

The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage
on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor.
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or
absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the
guide starting pdf page 40).

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

Ratings range from junk to very high.


If your air conditioner needs a protector, then critical items need
a protection more desperately.

As others have said, an air conditioner is not particularly vulnerable.

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

Since that
protector does not have the dedicated earth ground connection, it also
does not even claim to provide protection from each type of surge.
Did they forget to mention each type of surge?

More complete nonsense.

Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible
combinations and all possible surge modes.


Radio Shack is not on that list.

Because it is w_’s list.

Radio Shack solution has not
dedicated earthing wire; does not even discuss earth ground.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING, not earthing.


Take that $2 plug assembly. Add some $0.10 parts.

One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.


Get your earthing upgrades because earthing provides the
protection. Then install one 'whole house' protector to make that
'less than 10 foot' earthing connection.

Surge suppressors at the service are a good idea.
What does the NIST guide say?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."

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

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

–-
bud--

w_tom wrote:

Another electrical protection device is called an AGFI. This is a
GFI now required for all bedrooms. It detects electric arcing; cuts
off power before a fire can occur.

It is AFCI - arc-fault circuit interrupter. They are much more
sophisticated than a GFCI, They detect *only* “parallel” arcs, like line
to neutral. They do not detect “series” arcs, like a loose connection.
(“Combination” AFCIs that detect series arcs are required after 1–1-08
but they probably don’t exist now and may well not exist then.)


A newer type of GFCI that also quashes electrical arcs.
Available in any electrical supply or hardware store.

Provide a link with information for this mythical device.

--
bud--

On Nov 11, 5:41 am, bud-- wrote:
w_tom wrote:

Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
And one from the NIST at:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

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



Any protection that might work on its power cord is already inside
the air conditioner. The plug-in device adds nothing.

Complete nonsense.

But it uses
the words 'surge' and 'protector'; therefore it must do something?
You are being sold on science based in 'word association'.

Geez - it even fooled the IEEE and NIST. Both guides say plug-in
suppressors are effective.



Do you believe that protector stops what three miles of sky could
not? It must to stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors don't
stop or absorb surges.

The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage
on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor.
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or
absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the
guide starting pdf page 40).

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

Ratings range from junk to very high.



If your air conditioner needs a protector, then critical items need
a protection more desperately.

As others have said, an air conditioner is not particularly vulnerable.

That was my first thought too. But, I've seen newer AC's that have
electronics in them for digital temp control, remote control, etc.
Those could certainly be as susceptable as any other electronic eqpt.

I agree with the rest of your analysis regarding surge protectors.
Having whole house protection at the panel is a very good idea and
offers some key advantages, but it doesn't mean that plug-in surge
protectors don't work or are useless. One of my favorites from w_tom
is that all the appliances already have surge protection inside. So,
which would MOV would you rather have take that big spike and possible
get blown out? A $15 surge protector or a $2000 TV?






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

Since that
protector does not have the dedicated earth ground connection, it also
does not even claim to provide protection from each type of surge.
Did they forget to mention each type of surge?

More complete nonsense.

Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible
combinations and all possible surge modes.

Radio Shack is not on that list.

Because it is w_'s list.

Radio Shack solution has not
dedicated earthing wire; does not even discuss earth ground.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING, not earthing.



Take that $2 plug assembly. Add some $0.10 parts.

One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.



Get your earthing upgrades because earthing provides the
protection. Then install one 'whole house' protector to make that
'less than 10 foot' earthing connection.

Surge suppressors at the service are a good idea.
What does the NIST guide say?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."

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

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

--
bud--

On Nov 11, 7:49 am, wrote:
..., but it doesn't mean that plug-in surge protectors don't work
or are useless. One of my favorites from w_tom is that all the
appliances already have surge protection inside. So, which
would MOV would you rather have take that big spike and
possible get blown out? A $15 surge protector or a $2000 TV?

Why let propaganda distort your thinking? If the MOV is blown out,
then it provided no protection. Nada. Effective protectors MUST
earth a surge and remain functional. Why does a plug-in protector
fail during a surge? Why is it so grossly undersized? That failure
promotes more sales. A surge way too small to overwhelm protection
inside that $2000 TV or dishwasher, instead, destroyed the grossly
undersized plug-in protector? What kind of protection is that?
Ineffective and so expensive. But the protector enriches the
manufacturer.

Plug-in protectors will even earth surges destructively through
adjacent appliances. Review Bud's citations. A protector must earth
a surge - not absorb it. How does a plug-in protector earth without
a 'less than 10 foot' dedicated earthing wire? It does not. But then
it does not even claim such protection in its own numeric specs. Its
purpose is profits; not protection.

Learn why plug-in protectors may even earth surges destructively
through appliances. The surge must be earthed somewhere. Page 42
Figure 8 in
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf

A plug-in protector too close to an appliance has earthed a surge
*8000 volts destructively* through an adjacent TV. Where is the
protection? That protector - earthing a surge through the TV - has
done what its manufacture claims. It does not claim to protect from
the type of surge that typically causes damage. By being grossly
undersized (ineffective), you have assumed a blown out protector
provided protection? A blown out protector even violates every MOV
manufacturer spec. Acceptable MOV failure means never vaporizing. But
vaporizing gets the naive to promote more profits - recommend those
grossly undersized protectors.

A 'blown out' MOV is even a safety hazard - completely unacceptable.

Do you really believe it will absorb the energy from three miles of
lightning? They need you to 'feel' that one inch part stops or
absorbs what three miles of sky could not stop. Show me a single MOV
designed to do that - and good luck. Bud needs you to 'feel' it
protects by absorbing the entire surge - sacrificing itself. If you
learn the science, then profits are at risk. No effective protector
does that stopping or absorbing. But when a plug-in protector is
undersized, scary pictures may result:
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 :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

MOVs are no longer inside appliances because MOVs adjacent to the
appliance (on power cord or inside) are not effective. All appliances
have long contained internal protection - and no MOVs. MOVs must be
AT earth ground. Bud's citation even defines the effective
protector. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest"
it. What these protective devices do is neither suppress nor
arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can do
no harm. So a name that makes sense would be "surge
diverter" but it was not picked. So, for the rest of this booklet,
we will stick to the most popular "surge protector".

Where does it say anything about absorbing energy to be 'blown
out'? It does not. It *diverts* - and it remains functional. Blown
out is how to promote more sales of protectors that don't even claim
to provide protection.

Divert it to where? Where is surge energy dissipated? Earth
ground. With a 6 foot power cord on a plug-in protector, how will it
make a 'less than 10 foot' connection? Wire length (not diameter)
mostly determines wire impedance. The effective surge protector must
have a low impedance connection to earth. That means 'less than 10
feet'. A plug-in protector too far from earth ground is for profits;
not protection. Does not even claim to provide protection. View it
yourself. Its numeric specs do not even list or claim to protection
from the typically destructive type of surge. Bud will never post
that number because the number does not exist. A $15 plug-in
protector (or same one sold in Circuit City or Radio Shack for $150)
does not even claim to provide that protection.

But its called a protector. Therefore it must be protection? Junk
science reasoning. Even its own specs do not claim to protect from the
typically destructive surge.

You would spend 15 times more money ($15) and still not protect that
$2000 TV?

A grossly undersized protector's MOV may vaporize so you will
believe myths. See those scary pictures that demonstrate plug-in
protectors. Bud hopes you ignore those scary pictures including a
latest fire in Boston or the NC Fire Marshall's report on why plug-in
protector create fires. Effective MOVs make a short ('less than 10
foot') connection to earth ground AND is best located far from
appliances. That effective solution is the 'whole house' protector -
costing tens of times less money. No earth ground means no effective
protection.

Why does your telephone CO not shutdown during every thunderstorm?
It connects to overhead wires everywhere in town. According to Bell
System Tech Journal papers, the CO may suffer about 100 surges during
every thunderstorm. Why does their telephone switching computer
suffer no damage? One 'whole house' protector is located where each
wire enters the building, where the protector connects directly to
earth ground, AND up to 50 meters separation from electronics.
*Separation* between electronics and protector is important for
protection. Oh. They don't waste money on plug-in protectors? They
don't want protectors that can even contribute to electronics damage
or create scary pictures. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Effective protector is at earth ground AND is separated
from the $2000 TV.

You actually believe a 'blown out' MOV provides protection? A
'blown out' MOV even violates manufacturer specs. But a 'blown out'
MOV gets the naïve to promote more sales. Telcos don't waste tens of
times more money for ineffective protection. Why would you? Why
would you use a protector that may earth surges destructively through
your $2000 TV?

On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:49 am, wrote:

..., but it doesn't mean that plug-in surge protectors don't work
or are useless. One of my favorites from w_tom is that all the
appliances already have surge protection inside. So, which
would MOV would you rather have take that big spike and
possible get blown out? A $15 surge protector or a $2000 TV?

Why let propaganda distort your thinking?

No need to worry, I'm not letting your propaganda distort my thinking.


If the MOV is blown out,
then it provided no protection. Nada. Effective protectors MUST
earth a surge and remain functional.

Following that logic, a blown fuse offers no protection either. It's
certainly possible for a MOV inside a plug-in surge protector to have
taken the biggest part of the surge, blowing it out, and the
protection inside the electronic appliance, acting in parallel, to
have also taken some of the surge, but not be destroyed.




Why does a plug-in protector
fail during a surge? Why is it so grossly undersized? That failure
promotes more sales. A surge way too small to overwhelm protection
inside that $2000 TV or dishwasher, instead, destroyed the grossly
undersized plug-in protector? What kind of protection is that?
Ineffective and so expensive. But the protector enriches the
manufacturer.

LOL. Let me get this straight. According to you, the minimal
protection inside electronic eqpt or an appliance is supposed to be
perfectly capable of stopping a surge, yet components capable of
disipating a similar or larger surge in a plug-in protector are
useless?



Plug-in protectors will even earth surges destructively through
adjacent appliances. Review Bud's citations.

Bud's citations say that plug-ins work.


A protector must earth
a surge - not absorb it.

No, in the case of a plug-in protector, as Bud outlined, the device
limits the differential between hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to
ground.




How does a plug-in protector earth without
a 'less than 10 foot' dedicated earthing wire? It does not. But then
it does not even claim such protection in its own numeric specs. Its
purpose is profits; not protection.

Take that up with the IEEE.




Learn why plug-in protectors may even earth surges destructively
through appliances. The surge must be earthed somewhere. Page 42
Figure 8 in
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf

A plug-in protector too close to an appliance has earthed a surge
*8000 volts destructively* through an adjacent TV. Where is the
protection? That protector - earthing a surge through the TV - has
done what its manufacture claims. It does not claim to protect from
the type of surge that typically causes damage. By being grossly
undersized (ineffective), you have assumed a blown out protector
provided protection? A blown out protector even violates every MOV
manufacturer spec. Acceptable MOV failure means never vaporizing. But
vaporizing gets the naive to promote more profits - recommend those
grossly undersized protectors.

So, I can take any size/rating MOV and pass any size current through
it and if it fails, it violates the manufacturer's spec? What are
they, a miracle device?




A 'blown out' MOV is even a safety hazard - completely unacceptable.

Do you really believe it will absorb the energy from three miles of
lightning? They need you to 'feel' that one inch part stops or
absorbs what three miles of sky could not stop. Show me a single MOV
designed to do that - and good luck. Bud needs you to 'feel' it
protects by absorbing the entire surge - sacrificing itself.

You are the only one here talking about surge protectors "absorbing"
anything. You brought up the term.


If you
learn the science, then profits are at risk. No effective protector
does that stopping or absorbing. But when a plug-in protector is
undersized, scary pictures may result:
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:
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol orhttp://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPP...
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/


How is it that disaster results only from plug-in surge protectors and
not from similar protection that you crow about that is built into
electronic devices/appliances and located 4 ft away? Hmmm, neither
one has a close by earth ground, do they?



MOVs are no longer inside appliances because MOVs adjacent to the
appliance (on power cord or inside) are not effective. All appliances
have long contained internal protection - and no MOVs. MOVs must be
AT earth ground. Bud's citation even defines the effective
protector. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest"
it. What these protective devices do is neither suppress nor
arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can do
no harm. So a name that makes sense would be "surge
diverter" but it was not picked. So, for the rest of this booklet,
we will stick to the most popular "surge protector".

Where does it say anything about absorbing energy to be 'blown
out'? It does not. It *diverts* - and it remains functional. Blown
out is how to promote more sales of protectors that don't even claim
to provide protection.

Again, only you are talking about absorbing energy. I never said
that. Bud didn't either. And to blow out a MOV all you need to do
is hit it with current beyond what it is rated for. You apparently
aren't aware that they have specs for max current and maximum energy
disipation. It's a semiconductor, not an infinite current shunt.




Divert it to where? Where is surge energy dissipated? Earth
ground. With a 6 foot power cord on a plug-in protector, how will it
make a 'less than 10 foot' connection?

Then why do manufacturers put surge protection into electronic eqpt
and appliances that work under the same conditions? No, wait! They
are even farther from earth ground by the length of the appiance power
cord of about 4 ft.




Wire length (not diameter)
mostly determines wire impedance. The effective surge protector must
have a low impedance connection to earth. That means 'less than 10
feet'. A plug-in protector too far from earth ground is for profits;
not protection. Does not even claim to provide protection. View it
yourself. Its numeric specs do not even list or claim to protection
from the typically destructive type of surge. Bud will never post
that number because the number does not exist. A $15 plug-in
protector (or same one sold in Circuit City or Radio Shack for $150)
does not even claim to provide that protection.

But its called a protector. Therefore it must be protection? Junk
science reasoning. Even its own specs do not claim to protect from the
typically destructive surge.

You would spend 15 times more money ($15) and still not protect that
$2000 TV?

Take it up with IEEE and NIST.





A grossly undersized protector's MOV may vaporize so you will
believe myths. See those scary pictures that demonstrate plug-in
protectors. Bud hopes you ignore those scary pictures including a
latest fire in Boston or the NC Fire Marshall's report on why plug-in
protector create fires. Effective MOVs make a short ('less than 10
foot') connection to earth ground AND is best located far from
appliances. That effective solution is the 'whole house' protector -
costing tens of times less money. No earth ground means no effective
protection.

If they were a fraction as dangerous as you claim, they would have
been pulled from the market a long time ago.




Why does your telephone CO not shutdown during every thunderstorm?
It connects to overhead wires everywhere in town. According to Bell
System Tech Journal papers, the CO may suffer about 100 surges during
every thunderstorm. Why does their telephone switching computer
suffer no damage? One 'whole house' protector is located where each
wire enters the building, where the protector connects directly to
earth ground, AND up to 50 meters separation from electronics.
*Separation* between electronics and protector is important for
protection. Oh. They don't waste money on plug-in protectors? They
don't want protectors that can even contribute to electronics damage
or create scary pictures. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Effective protector is at earth ground AND is separated
from the $2000 TV.

Hmm, then why do they put the protection inside appliances that you
have no problem with? But put similar, or better protection next to
it in a plug-in surge protector, and according to you, it's useless.






You actually believe a 'blown out' MOV provides protection? A
'blown out' MOV even violates manufacturer specs. But a 'blown out'
MOV gets the naïve to promote more sales. Telcos don't waste tens of
times more money for ineffective protection. Why would you? Why
would you use a protector that may earth surges destructively through
your $2000 TV?


I believe a blown out MOV could have turned on sooner, taking the
surge hit before the protection inside the appliance. Or, being in
parallel, it could take part of the surge and the protection inside
the appliance could take part, where without the external surge
protection, the appliance would have gotten the whole thing and had
it's protection and/or the appliance destroyed.

Start with datasheets from MOV manufacturers to understand any surge
protector. Thihs will be long - chock full of tech specs and
concepts.

If the MOV fails catastrophically, then the MOV operates completely
outside "Absolute Maximum Parameters". Its datasheet is quite blunt.
MOVs do not blow like fuses. In fact fuses and MOVs perform two
completely different functions. But those who never learned how plug-
in protectors work will often assume the protector acts like a fuse -
as trader4 has just assumed.

Trader4 implies a protector will disconnect an appliance to stop a
surge. That surge could not be stopped by three miles of sky. How
does an MOV or fuse then stop or limit it? It only does when one (ie
trader4) has no idea what these components do. As in previous posts,
trader4 will cite no spec numbers, no citations, and cannot even say
how a protector works. This post will be chock full of engineering
sources, numbers, and quotes because plug-in protectors do not claim
to provide protection AND because one effective 'whole house'
protector with earthing provides massive protection - at tens of times
less money.

How good is protection inside appliances? Trader4 denies this
protection exist, but forgets to provide numbers. Industry standards
even in 1970 defined 600 volt transients without damage. Computers
defined in Intel specs must withstand AC electric voltages in the
thousands of volts without damage. If trader4 has learned the
technology, then he knew these well known standards.

How many volts much the NIC (network) withstand without damage?
Again, rated for thousands of volts. trader4 calls that minimal
protection? Fine. It is the protection inside electronics that can
be overwhelmed if the surge is not earthed where the surge enters a
building. Internal protection that can be overwhelmed if an adjacent
plug-in protector earths a surge destructively through that
appliance. Protection that means no appliance damaged because surges
are earthed before entering the building. Appliance internal
protection that makes daily (trivial) transients completely
irrelevant.

Trader would have us believe no such protection exists? Many who
know without first learning the numbers make those claims. Industry
standard for 120 volt computer equipment. It must withstand
transients up to 600 volts without damage. Intel demands even higher
voltages computers. That is the internal protection standard in
electronic appliances. What protects dimmer switches and GFCI from
household generated surges? They all have internal protection.
Protection that may be overwhelmed if the typically destructive surge
is permitted inside the building. One 'whole house' protector properly
earthed means no surge damage.

Bud's citation says protectors work IF there is an earth ground to
divert to. Bud's citations also say a protector too close to
appliances and too far from earth ground may earth a surge .... 8000
volts destructively ... through the adjacent electronics. This is
effective protection? Page 42 Figure 8. Does Trader4 deny that
figure? The adjacent protector earths the surge through TV2 - and
that is effective protection? Either the surge is earthed before
entering the building (effective protection) or the surge is earthed
destructively where? ... 8000 volts through an adjacent TV?

If plug-in protectors are so effective as Trader4 says, then where
does the manufacture claim that in numeric specs? Why no listing for
each type of surge AND no protection from that surge? Well, the plug-
in protector may protect from a surge made irrelevant by protection
already inside the appliance. What type of surge does it not protect
from? One that seeks earth ground.

Every responsible source including IEEE and all of Bud's citations
say that the protector works by earthing. How does the plug-in
protector work without an earth connection? That is the point of
Bud's citations. That is the point of Page 42 Figure 8. No earth
ground connection. So it earths a surge 8000 volts through the TV.

Where does the IEEE make recommendations? Not in pamphlets. IEEE
makes recommendation in standards. What does the IEEE Standard 141
(Red Book) say?
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.

Other IEEE Standards also make similar demands for earthing.
Earthing provides the protection. Even the NIST document (quoted
earlier) says the effective protector works by *diverting* a surge to
earth ground. If a dedicated connection to earth ground does not
exist? Page 42 Figure 8. An 8000 volt surge gets earthed
destructively through the adjacent TV.

As trader4 said, a protector might "limits the differential between
hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to ground". Fine. The
typically destructive type of surge is still seeking earth ground.
The protector has distributed (shunted, diverted, connected, clamped)
the surge onto all three wires ... and still seeking earth ground.
Trader4 - stop denying Page 42 Figure 8. The surge is shunted to
other wires. Therefore the surge now has more wires to find earth
ground, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV.

Why do I know this? We have traced surges doing just that. In one
case study, plug-in protectors on some networked computers earthed a
surge into those adjacent computers. The surge passed through network
cards to enter other computers - the path to earth ground. We
literally replaced each damaged IC - traced the path of that surge.
We made network cards and computers functional again because we
learned how surges actually do damage. Protectors did connect the
surge "differential between hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to
ground" - as trader4 says. That gave the surge plenty of paths into
the adjacent computers, through the network, and out to earth ground
destructively via another computer. Again, damage occurred because
the protector was too far from earth ground AND too close to
electronics.

Only one of us has learned this stuff over many decades by even
designing protectors AND by tracing out resulting failures - or
complete protection. That engineering knowledge is not displayed by
trader4. Trader4 has only posted what retail store salesmen claim.

I asked how a protector earths a surge without that short connection
to earth. Trader4 said, "Take it up with the IEEE." I did long ago.
And I quoted repeatedly from the IEEE. In every case, effective
protection is defined by earthing as the IEEE says.

But then I went farther - and with numbers. Why does the telco
switching computer connected to overhead wires all over town not
suffer damage? Why does a typical thunderstorm send hundreds of
surges to that switching computer - and no damage? Because every
protector is earthed were wires enter the building AND up to 50 meters
away from electronics. Why do telcos not use plug-in protectors that
trader4 and Bud recommend? They learned 100 years ago what provides
the protection. An earthed protector was even patented in the 1890s.
Earthing. They want protectors that don't create those "scary
pictures".

Then trader4 asks:
So, I can take any size/rating MOV and pass any size current
through it and if it fails, it violates the manufacturer's spec?

Obviously not. But then plug-in protectors often have that problem
- too few MOVs (are so grossly undersized). A surge strikes protector
and computer simultaneously (see how the protector is wired).
Protection inside a computer is so robust that the computer is
unharmed. But the protector inside a power strip is so grossly
undersized as to fail - as trader4 says "blown out". The naive claim
a protector sacrificed itself to save the computer. Reality:
computer saved itself. That same trivial surge destroyed a grossly
undersized protector. This failure promotes sales.

What happens when the same surge is earthed by a properly sized
'whole house' protector? Surge is earthed. Protectors remains
functional. Human never even knows the surge existed. That is
effective protection. But that does not get the naive to promote more
sales of grossly overpriced plug-in protectors - including $150 models
from Monster Cable.

Grossly undersized plug-in protectors sometimes create these 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 :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

So who makes 'whole house' protectors? Responsible companies such
as GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Leviton, and
others. Notice names missing such as Tripplite, Belkin, APC, and
especially Monster Cable. Let's see. Take a $3 power strip. Apply
some expensive paint. Install some $0.10 protector components. Sell
it for $150. No wonder plug-in protector need people such as Bud to
promote their products. Profits may be at risk. And then those
"scary pictures". Don't put too many MOV inside. That would harm
profits. An undersized (failing) power strip will have the naive
assume, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".

Tell us trader4. If the plug-in protector magically protects by
""limits the differential between ...", then were does all that energy
get dissipated? You claim the surge is dissipated by the MOV "between
hot-neutral, neutral to ground," etc. So where does all that energy
get dissipated? Inside a tiny MOV that is doing the limiting? If the
MOV is doing limiting, then the MOV is absorbing all that energy. But
even MOV manufacturers say that is not the purpose of the MOV. Well
if the MOV absorbs too much energy, then it will fail - promote more
sales. That energy must be dissipated somewhere. Tell us trader4 -
since you deny so often and never provide facts - tell us where that
energy is dissipated?

No earth ground means energy cannot be dissipated in earth. So
where is that energy dissipated? In the MOV? Or on Page 42 Figure 8
- 8000 volts dissipates energy across the adjacent TV? The energy
must be dissipated somewhere. How curious that IEEE Standards, all
Bud's citations, any responsible source list where energy is
dissipated. Either destructively in the building OR earthed
harmlessly by a 'whole house' protector.

Let's see. Electrical Engineering Times just published two front
page articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients". What does an engineer define for effective surge
protection? Protectors? Of course not. He discusses what provides
the protection - where all that energy is dissipated. Read it
yourself. From the 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007 issues of EE Times:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807127
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807830

Earthing provides the protection. Those articles don't even discuss
protectors. But important for protection is the wire length to earth;
it must be short for lowest possible impedance. Why does Kaufmann
discuss earthing and short connections to earth? No earth ground
means no effective protection. No earth ground means trader4 must
claim energy is absorbed (or blocked) by the MOV. But that is not
what an MOV does. As the NIST says on page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest"
it. What these protective devices do is neither suppress nor
arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can do
no harm.

What does a plug-in protector do without that low impedance
connection to earth ground? If may shunt that energy 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV (Page 42 Figure 8) or it may
shunt that energy through computer network (our analysis).

Trader4 - when will you tell us how the adjacent protector works?
By limiting (your really mean shunted or diverting) that current, it
simply gave the surge more paths to find earth ground destructively
through adjacent appliances.

No wonder the telco puts their protectors up to 50 meters distant
from their switching computer. No wonder the telco earths their
protector so short. No wonder the telco can suffer 100 surges during
each storm - and no damage. No wonder the telco does not use
undersized and grossly overpriced ($15) plug-in protector. No wonder
telcos do not use the same protectors selling for $150 in Radio Shack,
Circuit City, et al. They want protection; not to enrich the
manufacturer.


How much grasp of electronic design do you have? I said appliances
contain effective protection. I did not say they contain MOVs as
trader4 assumes. Trader4 asks:
why do manufacturers put surge protection into electronic eqpt

They don't. Apple II once had MOVs inside. All electronic
equipment contains internal protection. Nothing said it is provided
by surge protectors. Apple no longer used MOVs in their equipment
because MOVs located too far from earth ground do nothing effective.
But again, trader4 did not first learn the industry numbers. Again
trader4 made assumptions because he does not know how such equipment
is designed. He denies everything about effective surge protection,
somehow magically knows a grossly overpriced protector must provide
protection, but does not even know how electronics routinely contain
protection.

Trader4, take a walk through semiconductor databooks. Interface
semiconductors. Why does the datasheet cite 15,000 volt protection?
And without MOVs? And why is that protection defined by IEC1000-4-2
standards? Oh. Such internal protection is that high and that
standard. Trader4 did not even know this? Which one of us is posting
because he has learned the technology? I provided the voltage
numbers. I provided the standards number. I quote what the IEEE Red
book (and other IEEE Standards) require for protection. I provided
the EE Times article that discussed earth ground for protection. I
quoted same in all of Bud's citations. What does Trader4 know? Only
what he was told by the retail store salesman. What kind of citation
is that?

Trader4 provides only one thing. Denial.

No earth ground means no effective protection. One 'whole house'
protector, properly earthed, is what dissipated the direct lightning
strike harmlessly in earth. What does trader4 paraphrase? Bud who
promotes for plug-in protector manufacturers.

w_tom took it up with the IEEE and learned what is required for
effective protection long ago. w_tom built surge protectors to learn
what does and does not work. w_tom traced direct lightning strikes
to learn why damage occurred. w_tom has seen what is also
demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8 - the protector that earthed a surge
8000 volts through an adjacent TV.

Who should we believe? Trader4 who has yet to cite a technical
fact. Of this poster who is citing numbers, standards, energy, and
concepts repeatedly. How curious that manufacturers with far better
reputations - Square D, Leviton, Intermatic, Cutler- Hammer, Siemens,
and GE - all make protectors with that dedicated earthing connection.
Why would more responsible manufacturers do that when Trader4 says it
is not necessary? Why would everyone's telco also install only
properly earthed protection. Could it be that a protector without
earthing is profitable rather than effective?

When does trader4 quote manufacturer numeric specs that claim
protection? He cannot. Plug-in protectors do not even claim such
protection. How to identify an ineffective protector? 1) No
dedicated earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer will not discuss earthing.
No earth ground means no effective protection. But don't worry. Page
42 Figure 8 - it may earth that surge 8000 volts destructively through
the nearby TV. When that happens, the plug-in protector does exactly
what trader4 says it does.

On Nov 11, 9:16 pm, wrote:
On Nov 11, 2:01 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:49 am, wrote:
...
If the MOV is blown out,
then it provided no protection. Nada. Effective protectors MUST
earth a surge and remain functional.

Following that logic, a blown fuse offers no protection either. It's
certainly possible for a MOV inside a plug-in surge protector to have
taken the biggest part of the surge, blowing it out, and the
protection inside the electronic appliance, acting in parallel, to
have also taken some of the surge, but not be destroyed.

...
LOL. Let me get this straight. According to you, the minimal
protection inside electronic eqpt or an appliance is supposed to be
perfectly capable of stopping a surge, yet components capable of
disipating a similar or larger surge in a plug-in protector are
useless?

Plug-in protectors will even earth surges destructively through
adjacent appliances. Review Bud's citations.

Bud's citations say that plug-ins work.

A protector must earth a surge - not absorb it.

No, in the case of a plug-in protector, as Bud outlined, the device
limits the differential between hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to
ground.

How does a plug-in protector earth without
a 'less than 10 foot' dedicated earthing wire? It does not. But then
it does not even claim such protection in its own numeric specs. Its
purpose is profits; not protection.
Take that up with the IEEE.

Learn why plug-in protectors may even earth surges destructively
through appliances. The surge must be earthed somewhere. Page 42
Figure 8 in
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
A plug-in protector too close to an appliance has earthed a surge
*8000 volts destructively* through an adjacent TV. Where is the
protection? That protector - earthing a surge through the TV - has
done what its manufacture claims. It does not claim to protect from
the type of surge that typically causes damage. By being grossly
undersized (ineffective), you have assumed a blown out protector
provided protection? A blown out protector even violates every MOV
manufacturer spec. Acceptable MOV failure means never vaporizing. But
vaporizing gets the naive to promote more profits - recommend those
grossly undersized protectors.

So, I can take any size/rating MOV and pass any size current through
it and if it fails, it violates the manufacturer's spec? What are
they, a miracle device?

A 'blown out' MOV is even a safety hazard - completely unacceptable.

Do you really believe it will absorb the energy from three miles of
lightning? They need you to 'feel' that one inch part stops or
absorbs what three miles of sky could not stop. Show me a single MOV
designed to do that - and good luck. Bud needs you to 'feel' it
protects by absorbing the entire surge - sacrificing itself.

You are the only one here talking about surge protectors "absorbing"
anything. You brought up the term.

How is it that disaster results only from plug-in surge protectors and
not from similar protection that you crow about that is built into
electronic devices/appliances and located 4 ft away? Hmmm, neither
one has a close by earth ground, do they?

MOVs are no longer inside appliances because MOVs adjacent to the
appliance (on power cord or inside) are not effective. All appliances
have long contained internal protection - and no MOVs. MOVs must be
AT earth ground. Bud's citation even defines the effective
protector. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest"
it. What these protective devices do is neither suppress nor
arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can do
no harm. So a name that makes sense would be "surge
diverter" but it was not picked. So, for the rest of this booklet,
we will stick to the most popular "surge protector".

Where does it say anything about absorbing energy to be 'blown
out'? It does not. It *diverts* - and it remains functional. Blown
out is how to promote more sales of protectors that don't even claim
to provide protection.

Again, only you are talking about absorbing energy. I never said
that. Bud didn't either. And to blow out a MOV all you need to do
is hit it with current beyond what it is rated for. You apparently
aren't aware that they have specs for max current and maximum energy
disipation. It's a semiconductor, not an infinite current shunt.



Divert it to where? Where is surge energy dissipated? Earth
ground. With a 6 foot power cord on a plug-in protector, how will it
make a 'less than 10 foot' connection?

Then why do manufacturers put surge protection into electronic eqpt
and appliances that work under the same conditions? No, wait! They
are even farther from earth ground by the length of the appiance power
cord of about 4 ft.

Wire length (not diameter) mostly determines wire impedance. The
effective surge protector must have a low impedance connection to
earth. That means 'less than 10 feet'. A plug-in protector too far
from earth ground is for profits; not protection. Does not even
claim to provide protection. View it yourself. Its numeric specs do
not even list or claim to protection from the typically destructive type
of surge. Bud will never post that number because the number does
not exist. A $15 plug-in protector (or same one sold in Circuit City
or Radio Shack for $150) does not even claim to provide that protection.
...

On Nov 12, 1:28 am, w_tom wrote:
Start with datasheets from MOV manufacturers to understand any surge
protector. Thihs will be long - chock full of tech specs and
concepts.

If the MOV fails catastrophically, then the MOV operates completely
outside "Absolute Maximum Parameters". Its datasheet is quite blunt.
MOVs do not blow like fuses. In fact fuses and MOVs perform two
completely different functions. But those who never learned how plug-
in protectors work will often assume the protector acts like a fuse -
as trader4 has just assumed.

I never claimed that MOV's work like a fuse.



Trader4 implies a protector will disconnect an appliance to stop a
surge.

Never implied that either.



That surge could not be stopped by three miles of sky.

The typical surge arriving at an electronic appliance in your house is
not a direct full lightening strike, so this has zero applicability.

How
does an MOV or fuse then stop or limit it? It only does when one (ie
trader4) has no idea what these components do. As in previous posts,
trader4 will cite no spec numbers, no citations, and cannot even say
how a protector works.

It was clearly explained to you by Bud, but you don't listen, because
you're on some kind of fanatic campaign.



This post will be chock full of engineering
sources, numbers, and quotes because plug-in protectors do not claim
to provide protection AND because one effective 'whole house'
protector with earthing provides massive protection - at tens of times
less money.

How good is protection inside appliances? Trader4 denies this
protection exist, but forgets to provide numbers.

Again, you're making things up. Please show me where I ever said this
doesn't exist. All I said was:

1 - This protection inside the appliance, that you claim is capable of
dealing with surges, is similar to the protection inside a plug-in
surge protector. It has no DIRECT PATH TO EARTH GROUND. Yet you
claim it can defeat surges. So, how is it that this can, but a plug-
in surge protector, operating with the same limitations, cannot?


Industry standards
even in 1970 defined 600 volt transients without damage. Computers
defined in Intel specs must withstand AC electric voltages in the
thousands of volts without damage. If trader4 has learned the
technology, then he knew these well known standards.

I'll compare my engineering and technology qualifications against
you're any day, smart guy.





How many volts much the NIC (network) withstand without damage?
Again, rated for thousands of volts. trader4 calls that minimal
protection? Fine. It is the protection inside electronics that can
be overwhelmed if the surge is not earthed where the surge enters a
building. Internal protection that can be overwhelmed if an adjacent
plug-in protector earths a surge destructively through that
appliance. Protection that means no appliance damaged because surges
are earthed before entering the building. Appliance internal
protection that makes daily (trivial) transients completelyirrelevant.

Again, you're making no sense. Surge components inside the appiance
are peachy keen. But somehow putting similar in a plug-in that also
opperates under the same conditions becomes ineffective and actually
causes destruction? LOL



Trader would have us believe no such protection exists?

Again, you're making things up. Never said any such thing.



Many who
know without first learning the numbers make those claims. Industry
standard for 120 volt computer equipment. It must withstand
transients up to 600 volts without damage. Intel demands even higher
voltages computers. That is the internal protection standard in
electronic appliances. What protects dimmer switches and GFCI from
household generated surges? They all have internal protection.
Protection that may be overwhelmed if the typically destructive surge
is permitted inside the building. One 'whole house' protector properly
earthed means no surge damage.

Bud's citation says protectors work IF there is an earth ground to
divert to. Bud's citations also say a protector too close to
appliances and too far from earth ground may earth a surge .... 8000
volts destructively ... through the adjacent electronics. This is
effective protection? Page 42 Figure 8. Does Trader4 deny that
figure? The adjacent protector earths the surge through TV2 - and
that is effective protection? Either the surge is earthed before
entering the building (effective protection) or the surge is earthed
destructively where? ... 8000 volts through an adjacent TV?


You want to talk about citations? This is like ignoring the 15ft
elephant in the room. The IEEE lightning guide has a whole section
where they talk about plug-in surge protectors. Do they say they
don't work? No. Do they say they cause damage to appliances?
No. Do they say they are a fire hazard? No. They talk about how
they can be used in a home and state:

"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating and
absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting
voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work
better than either one alone."

Now, is that clear enough for you? It's exactly what I've been
telling you. It was stated by the 5 authors of the IEEE lightning
guide for homes. You want to attack their credibility or educational
background too?

PS: Don't bother to spew on about the use of the word absorb in the
above statement. Any reasonable person knows they are using that
term loosely and it doesn't mean these degreed EE's think that the MOV
is dissipating the energy instead of shunting it to ground.





If plug-in protectors are so effective as Trader4 says, then where
does the manufacture claim that in numeric specs? Why no listing for
each type of surge AND no protection from that surge? Well, the plug-
in protector may protect from a surge made irrelevant by protection
already inside the appliance. What type of surge does it not protect
from? One that seeks earth ground.

How things are spec'd and whether they don;t work is too different
things.

According to the IEEE, they work.





Every responsible source including IEEE and all of Bud's citations
say that the protector works by earthing. How does the plug-in
protector work without an earth connection? That is the point of
Bud's citations. That is the point of Page 42 Figure 8. No earth
ground connection. So it earths a surge 8000 volts through the TV.

Where does the IEEE make recommendations? Not in pamphlets. IEEE
makes recommendation in standards.


LOL
The reference Bud provided you is straight from the IEEE and targeted
at providing average people with an authoritative source on home
protection. You think it's false, take it up with them.



What does the IEEE Standard 141
(Red Book) say?

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.

Other IEEE Standards also make similar demands for earthing.
Earthing provides the protection. Even the NIST document (quoted
earlier) says the effective protector works by *diverting* a surge to
earth ground. If a dedicated connection to earth ground does not
exist? Page 42 Figure 8. An 8000 volt surge gets earthed
destructively through the adjacent TV.

As trader4 said, a protector might "limits the differential between
hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to ground". Fine. The
typically destructive type of surge is still seeking earth ground.
The protector has distributed (shunted, diverted, connected, clamped)
the surge onto all three wires ... and still seeking earth ground.
Trader4 - stop denying Page 42 Figure 8. The surge is shunted to
other wires. Therefore the surge now has more wires to find earth
ground, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV.


I should stop denying? LOL. You have the 15ft elephant in the form
of the IEEE document clearly stating how plug-ins do work in direct
contradiction to your rants and I'm the one in denial?



Why do I know this? We have traced surges doing just that. In one
case study, plug-in protectors on some networked computers earthed a
surge into those adjacent computers. The surge passed through network
cards to enter other computers - the path to earth ground. We
literally replaced each damaged IC - traced the path of that surge.
We made network cards and computers functional again because we
learned how surges actually do damage. Protectors did connect the
surge "differential between hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to
ground" - as trader4 says. That gave the surge plenty of paths into
the adjacent computers, through the network, and out to earth ground
destructively via another computer. Again, damage occurred because
the protector was too far from earth ground AND too close to
electronics.

Why should I doubt your personal observations? You seemed very
reasonable and balanced. LOL If anyone brought you a TV run over
by a garbage truck, I'm sure after an investigation, you'd say the
damage was caused by a plug-in surge protector.




Only one of us has learned this stuff over many decades by even
designing protectors AND by tracing out resulting failures - or
complete protection. That engineering knowledge is not displayed by
trader4. Trader4 has only posted what retail store salesmen claim.

No, Bud and I posed what the IEEE has to say about it.




I asked how a protector earths a surge without that short connection
to earth. Trader4 said, "Take it up with the IEEE." I did long ago.
And I quoted repeatedly from the IEEE. In every case, effective
protection is defined by earthing as the IEEE says.

But then I went farther - and with numbers. Why does the telco
switching computer connected to overhead wires all over town not
suffer damage? Why does a typical thunderstorm send hundreds of
surges to that switching computer - and no damage? Because every
protector is earthed were wires enter the building AND up to 50 meters
away from electronics. Why do telcos not use plug-in protectors that
trader4 and Bud recommend? They learned 100 years ago what provides
the protection. An earthed protector was even patented in the 1890s.
Earthing. They want protectors that don't create those "scary
pictures".

Then trader4 asks:

So, I can take any size/rating MOV and pass any size current
through it and if it fails, it violates the manufacturer's spec?

Obviously not. But then plug-in protectors often have that problem
- too few MOVs (are so grossly undersized). A surge strikes protector
and computer simultaneously (see how the protector is wired).
Protection inside a computer is so robust that the computer is
unharmed. But the protector inside a power strip is so grossly
undersized as to fail - as trader4 says "blown out". The naive claim
a protector sacrificed itself to save the computer. Reality:
computer saved itself. That same trivial surge destroyed a grossly
undersized protector. This failure promotes sales.


See the part about elephants.




What happens when the same surge is earthed by a properly sized
'whole house' protector? Surge is earthed. Protectors remains
functional. Human never even knows the surge existed. That is
effective protection. But that does not get the naive to promote more
sales of grossly overpriced plug-in protectors - including $150 models
from Monster Cable.

Grossly undersized plug-in protectors sometimes create these 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:
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol orhttp://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPP...
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/


I could show you pics where all kinds of appliances and similar
devices in the home caused fires too. That doesn't make them
unsafe. There must be hundreds of millions of surge protectors in
use. Finding a few that malfunctioned is no great revelation.



So who makes 'whole house' protectors? Responsible companies such
as GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Leviton, and
others. Notice names missing such as Tripplite, Belkin, APC, and
especially Monster Cable. Let's see. Take a $3 power strip. Apply
some expensive paint. Install some $0.10 protector components. Sell
it for $150. No wonder plug-in protector need people such as Bud to
promote their products. Profits may be at risk. And then those
"scary pictures". Don't put too many MOV inside. That would harm
profits. An undersized (failing) power strip will have the naive
assume, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".

Yes, according to you, we should all rely on the protection inside the
$2000 TV. I suppose no one has ever seen a TV where the internal
protection was blown? LOL. I'd rather see it in a $15 plug-in than
in the $2000 TV. So, would the IEEE, so if you have a problem with
it, take it up with them and get back to us, OK?




Tell us trader4. If the plug-in protector magically protects by
""limits the differential between ...", then were does all that energy
get dissipated? You claim the surge is dissipated by the MOV "between
hot-neutral, neutral to ground," etc. So where does all that energy
get dissipated? Inside a tiny MOV that is doing the limiting? If the
MOV is doing limiting, then the MOV is absorbing all that energy. But
even MOV manufacturers say that is not the purpose of the MOV. Well
...

read more »

w_tom wrote:

Why does a plug-in protector
fail during a surge? Why is it so grossly undersized?

For poor w_, all plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and all
service panel suppressors have mega ratings. Plug–in suppressors with
very high ratings are readily available .


Learn why plug-in protectors may even earth surges destructively
through appliances. The surge must be earthed somewhere. Page 42
Figure 8 in
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf

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

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

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

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

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


A plug-in protector too close to an appliance has earthed a surge
*8000 volts destructively* through an adjacent TV.

The lie repeated.

Bud needs you to 'feel' it
protects by absorbing the entire surge - sacrificing itself.

If you don’t have technical arguments, misquote someone.

Repeating:
“The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING ....
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or
absorbing).”

No effective protector
does that stopping or absorbing.

Only w_ talks about stopping or absorbing. If only he could think...

But when a plug-in protector is
undersized, scary pictures may result:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no
reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with
suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since
1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

Bud's citation even defines the effective
protector. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24)

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."

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



Divert it to where? Where is surge energy dissipated?

Repeating:
“The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.”


A grossly undersized protector's MOV may vaporize so you will
believe myths.

The “grossly undersized” red herring again.

No earth ground means no effective
protection.

You may not have noticed, but airplanes drag an earthing chain.

One 'whole house' protector is located where each
wire enters the building, where the protector connects directly to
earth ground, AND up to 50 meters separation from electronics.

What does the NIST guide say? Repeating:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."


A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

And the final required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective. Read the sources.

Still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. Only w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.

And never any answers:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

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

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:


Trader4 implies a protector will disconnect an appliance to stop a
surge. That surge could not be stopped by three miles of sky. How
does an MOV or fuse then stop or limit it?

Misquotes treader4 (a favorite w_ tactic).

My comments are in addition to trader4's response to w_’s dogma.


Bud's citations also say a protector too close to
appliances and too far from earth ground may earth a surge .... 8000
volts destructively ... through the adjacent electronics.

The lie repeated. See my other post.

Why no listing for
each type of surge AND no protection from that surge?

Why don’t w_’s favored SquareD service panel suppressors list “each
type of surge”? Because it is bullcrap.

How does a common mode surge (H and N lift from ground) get past the N-G
bond in all US services? Never explained.

That is the point of Page 42 Figure 8. No earth
ground connection. So it earths a surge 8000 volts through the TV.

The lie repeated #2.


Where does the IEEE make recommendations? Not in pamphlets. IEEE
makes recommendation in standards. What does the IEEE Standard 141
(Red Book) say?

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes
plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most
appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.

And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in
suppressors are effective. This “pamphlet” was peer-reviewed by the IEEE
and “was written to make the information developed by the [IEEE] more
accessible to electricians, architects, technicians, and electrical
engineers who were not protection specialists.”


If a dedicated connection to earth ground does not
exist? Page 42 Figure 8. An 8000 volt surge gets earthed
destructively through the adjacent TV.

The lie repeated #3.

Therefore the surge now has more wires to find earth
ground, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV.

The lie repeated #4.

We have traced surges doing just that. In one
case study, plug-in protectors on some networked computers earthed a
surge into those adjacent computers.

Repeating:
“Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the
same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents
damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport
suppressors are described in both guides.”


That engineering knowledge is not displayed by
trader4. Trader4 has only posted what retail store salesmen claim.

Geez trader - you’re sure stupid.

But then plug-in protectors often have that problem
- too few MOVs (are so grossly undersized). A surge strikes protector
and computer simultaneously (see how the protector is wired).
Protection inside a computer is so robust that the computer is
unharmed. But the protector inside a power strip is so grossly
undersized as to fail - as trader4 says "blown out".

LOL.

The impedance of the branch circuit greatly limits the current, and thus
energy, that can reach a plug-in suppressor. With high ratings, that are
readily available, a plug-in suppressor will likely never fail. That is
why warrantees can be offered on protected equipment.

The IEEE guide describes at length how the protected load can be
connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected if the MOVs fail and are
disconnected. Or the protected load can be connected across the incoming
line. In the first case, the protected load is ‘protected’ if the MOVs
fail. (This can’t be done with a service panel suppressor.)


But that does not get the naive to promote more
sales of grossly overpriced plug-in protectors - including $150 models
from Monster Cable.

A problem for w_ because he only buys Monster products.


Grossly undersized plug-in protectors sometimes create these scary
pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

The other lie repeated.

Take a $3 power strip. Apply
some expensive paint. Install some $0.10 protector components.

Question not answered - repeating:
“One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.”


No earth ground means energy cannot be dissipated in earth. So
where is that energy dissipated?

Repeating:
“The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.” In the example in the
IEEE guide it is through the ‘ground’ wire from the cable entry block to
the power service (too long).


No earth ground
means no effective protection.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.


If may shunt that energy 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV (Page 42 Figure 8)

The lie repeated #5

Why does the datasheet cite 15,000 volt protection?

Provide a link. 15,000V will arc across about 0.75 inches.


Trader4 provides only one thing. Denial.

w_ provides only one thing. Denial.


No earth ground means no effective protection.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #2.

Bud who
promotes for plug-in protector manufacturers.

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.

By the way w_, what are your connections to surge protection equipment
manufacturers?
Specifically ZeroSurge?


w_tom took it up with the IEEE and learned what is required for
effective protection long ago. w_tom built surge protectors to learn
what does and does not work. w_tom traced direct lightning strikes
to learn why damage occurred.

w_tom can’t figure out what the IEEE or NIST guides say.


Who should we believe? Trader4 who has yet to cite a technical
fact.

Who should we believe? w_, who has NO sources that say plug-in
suppressors do not work. Or trader4 who cites the IEEE and NIST guides.
Gee - that’s a tough one.


No earth ground means no effective protection.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #3.

Page
42 Figure 8 - it may earth that surge 8000 volts destructively through
the nearby TV.

The lie repeated #6.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Read the sources.

Still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. Why no sources w_??? Doesn’t anyone agree with you??

Never any answers:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.

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

--
bud--

On Nov 12, 9:44 am, wrote:
The typical surge arriving at an electronic appliance in your house is
not a direct full lightening strike, so this has zero applicability.
...

I'll compare my engineering and technology qualifications against
you're any day, smart guy.

What happens when lightning strikes wires highest on utility poles?
A direct strike to household appliances similar in nature to a direct
lightning strike on a commercial broadcast station, emergency response
center, or telephone CO. Why is an appliance damaged? A direct
strike finds earth ground, destructively, through that appliance. To
lightning, those utility wires connect to your appliances just like an
antenna to a radio station. What do those facilities install -
religiously - for no surge damage? Better earth grounds and no plug-
in protectors. What is the homeowner's solution? Same - but for so
little money.

What happens when using a properly earthed 'whole house' protector?
A homeowner need not install $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protectors.
Now the homeowner can save money and eliminate risk of these 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 :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

Let's see. The well proven solution costs tens of times less
money. It eliminates those scary pictures. It makes those grossly
overpriced plug-in protectors unnecessary. It does not earth a surge,
8000 volts destructively, through adjacent appliances; another
engineering fact on Page 42 Figure 8 that trader4 ignores or just does
not comprehend. Page 42 Figure 8 where a plug-in protector (no earth
ground connection) earths the surge destructively through a TV.

Trader4 still refuses to quote numeric specs that cite each type of
surge AND protection from that surge. Based upon technical facts
posted by trader4, he has no idea what different transients are. No
wonder he also associated MOVs with fuses. Manufacture specs are no
help. The manufacturer avoids admitting to surges it does not protect
from. So what are these various surges? Trader4 posts no
manufacturer specs because his knowledge is ... well, the manufacturer
will not even make those claims.

The 15 foot elephant is missing technical facts posted by trader4.
Somehow his denials of engineering and a belief in Bud half truths -
that is knowledge? Trader4 rationalizes "the pamphlet discussed a
plug-in protector; therefore it must protect from the typically
destructive surge". Trader4 - learn the technology. It also says that
earth ground is required to have protection. Why do you conveniently
ignore that part? Ignore that fact and you can claim the plug-in
protector does protect. It is called lying by ignoring the most
important fact. A plug-in protector can do something effective ... if
it has the earth ground that is does not have.

A plug-in protector will protect from one type of surge. A surge
made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances. But trader4
also denies that internal protection exists. He even denies standards
such as IEC1000. He denies because he does not possess necessary
technical knowledge. Trader4 - it is a standard for the technically
informed. I don't expect you to understand it. All you need
understand is that protection inside appliances even makes indirect
surges irrelevant. Protection that may be overwhelmed by the
destructive surge - ie a direct lightning strike to utility wires. No
plug-in protector claims to provide that protection.

Trader4 ignores what responsible engineers do routine for real world
protection. As in every telco switching center, the protector is
close to earth ground, AND up to 50 meters distant from electronics.
Separation between electronics and protector is part of the
protection. Apparently trader4 still does not even grasp the
significance of wire impedance as stated in "Protecting Electrical
Devices from Lightning Transients" at:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807127

Trader4, is simple math for wire impedance too complex? Did you
understand why EE Times discusses low wire impedance? Effective
protection means the surge must be earthed by low impedance
connections. That mean the 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection
provide by 'whole house' protectors AND a connection not available on
plug-in protectors. Could they be blunter? Effective protection is
about making a low impedance connection to earth. Effective
protection is not some protector absorbing surges as trader4 claims;
as he learned from retail salesman.

.. Notice engineers (ie the engineer at WXIA) don't post insults to
prove effective protection. Where do they discuss plug-in
protectors? They don't. They are discussing protection that
works ... and that means earthing.

Trader4 - remember earthing - the 15 foot elephant you routinely
ignore because, well, you even deny damage comes from direct lightning
strikes. Meanwhile effective protection from direct lightning strikes
even makes irrelevant trader4's indirect strikes (that are also made
irrelevant by protection inside appliances).

Why does trader4 invent damage from indirect strikes? The plug-in
protector is typically too grossly undersized (and no earthing) to
address direct strike damage. So he invents this straw man - the
indirect strike.


The informed homeowner ignores trader4 since his only prove come
from remarks of disparagement. Do what every responsible
professional recommends. ARRL, US Air Force, every telephone company,
Telcordia, Polyphaser - an industry benchmark, IEEE green, emerald,
and red book (Bud conveniently forgets all those IEEE standards demand
earthing for protection), British Standard 6651, every commercial
broadcasting engineer, all electric companies, rocket launch
facilities, FAA communication towers, ... anyone who cannot have
damage from surges requires earthing for protection. Every high
reliability facility does not use plug-in protectors. They ignore
these trader4 myths. Even Ben Franklin demonstrated the concept in
1752. What provided protection for a church steeple? The connection
to and quality of earthing.

Trader4's denies it. Every responsible source cites earthing as
essential. Earthing is the one system component that must always
exist for protection. Some protector systems don't even use
protectors. But still have that earth ground. From IEEE Standards
that trader4 repeatedly ignores and Bud intentionally misrepresents
(but then profits are at risk):
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.

From Bud's NIST citation:
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.

From an industry professional:
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such strikes
is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a strike,
it was due to a strike on the power company's lines knocking
*them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
low ohm DC path.

From the front page article in EE Times:
Providing a flow path for the lightning current is central to
effective lightning protection.

From another industry professional:
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to
ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning
protection device grounds the incoming signal connection
point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting
the threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance
(impedance) to ground where it is absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of
switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow
dissipation of the surge energy.

From IEEE Emerald Book which Bud routinely misrepresents:
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 and other grounded items
that personnel may be near or might simultaneously contact.

IEEE Green Book (Standard 142):
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. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

In an April 1997 discussion among ham radio operators about
protecting everything (including station) from surge damage:
The basic scenario is to install a Single Point Ground System
that is installed at the building entry. It shunts everything to
ground before it goes in the building. If you can keep it
outside, then you don't really have to do much inside. IMO
disconnecting the cables is more psychological than preventive.

From Matthew T. Glennon, P.E.
A surge protection device ... is designed to divert high-
current surges to ground and bypass your equipment,
thereby limiting the voltage that is impressed on the
equipment. For this reason, it is critical that your facility
have a good, low-resistance grounding system, with a
single ground reference point to which the grounds of all
building systems are connected. Without a proper
grounding system, there is no way to protect against
surges.

From the Motorola famous R-56 document:
Any ground length over five feet from equipment to ground rod
is almost useless for protection from a close lightning strike. It
is fine for a electrical safety ground, but too much voltage will
be imposed on the equipment for the equipment to survive from
a close strike.

From Sun Microsystems:
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.

From the legendary Polyphaser application notes:
The ideal plan is a single point ground with no sneak paths.
Sneak paths are loops that allow lightning current to flow
into the equipment room.
and
An adequate ground system, designed for lightning fast
rise time current pulses, is essential for long term
equipment survival.

From "Overvoltage Protection of Low Voltage Systems"
... the connection of all metal supply lines entering a building,
including power and communication cables, to the lightning
protection and earthing system by direct junctions across
disconnection spark gaps, or arrestors in the case of live
conductors."

Still trader4 denies that direct strikes cause damage. Trader4
even ignores the engineering reality of these 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 :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. One properly
earthed 'whole house' protector means no damage. Why waste $2000 or
$3000 for plug-in protectors that don't even claim to provide that
protection? Because plug-in protectors manufactures need those
profits?

The responsible homeowner upgrades earthing to meet and exceed post
1990 NEC requirements and installs a 'whole house' protectors from
responsible companies such as Siemens, Square D, Leviton, GE, Cutler-
Hammer, Intermatic or others. The responsible homeowner need not
waste big bucks on protectors that - well where does it even claim to
provide protection? Where is the connection to "divert it to
ground"? Telcos spend massively less money on 'whole house'
protectors connected to earthing - and do not waste money on plug-in
protectors. That is why telcos can suffer 100 surges during earth
thunderstorm and no damage. These are the facts that trader4 ignores
to believe Bud's myths.

The lurker need not waste money on myths. A 'whole house' protector
is so effective that the telco even installs one on all (your)
subscriber lines, for free. Again, what makes it effective? Follow
a wire from their protector inside the NID to what? Earth ground.
What is always required for effetive protection?

TV coax cable does not even need a protector. A properly installed
cable is earthed directly - no protector - where it enters the
building. And if they see a plug-in protector on your cable, the
cable guy will suggest you remove it. It does nothing useful; only
degrades the cable signal. Why does the cable guy not recommend what
trader4 and Bud promote? Ask who is promoting protection and who is
promoting retail sales propaganda? $150 for a Monster Cable box?
With those profit margins, than honest becomes difficult.

On Nov 13, 3:29 am, w_tom wrote:
On Nov 12, 9:44 am, wrote:

The typical surge arriving at an electronic appliance in your house is
not a direct full lightening strike, so this has zero applicability.
...

I'll compare my engineering and technology qualifications against
you're any day, smart guy.

What happens when lightning strikes wires highest on utility poles?
A direct strike to household appliances similar in nature to a direct
lightning strike on a commercial broadcast station, emergency response
center, or telephone CO. Why is an appliance damaged? A direct
strike finds earth ground, destructively, through that appliance. To
lightning, those utility wires connect to your appliances just like an
antenna to a radio station. What do those facilities install -
religiously - for no surge damage? Better earth grounds and no plug-
in protectors. What is the homeowner's solution? Same - but for so
little money.

What happens when using a properly earthed 'whole house' protector?
A homeowner need not install $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protectors.


More absurdity. These numbers are off by an order of magnitude from
reality, just like most of the rest of your arguments.


Now the homeowner can save money and eliminate risk of these 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:
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol orhttp://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPP...
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/


Yes, keep posting pics of the handful of scary pictures from the
hundreds of millions of surge protectors in use. I can post pics of
car wrecks. Does that mean that all cars are inherently unsafe and
you should not own one?





Let's see. The well proven solution costs tens of times less
money. It eliminates those scary pictures. It makes those grossly
overpriced plug-in protectors unnecessary. It does not earth a surge,
8000 volts destructively, through adjacent appliances; another
engineering fact on Page 42 Figure 8 that trader4 ignores or just does
not comprehend. Page 42 Figure 8 where a plug-in protector (no earth
ground connection) earths the surge destructively through a TV.

How about people living in a rental home? Or living in an apartment
building? Or a co-op? Where they can't put a whole house protector
in? According to you, what should they do? Answer that one please.





Trader4 still refuses to quote numeric specs that cite each type of
surge AND protection from that surge. Based upon technical facts
posted by trader4, he has no idea what different transients are. No
wonder he also associated MOVs with fuses. Manufacture specs are no
help. The manufacturer avoids admitting to surges it does not protect
from. So what are these various surges? Trader4 posts no
manufacturer specs because his knowledge is ... well, the manufacturer
will not even make those claims.

Bud already answered that one for you, pointing out that there are no
such numeric specs provided for the whole house surge suppressors
either, and that clearly doesn't bother you.




The 15 foot elephant is missing technical facts posted by trader4.
Somehow his denials of engineering and a belief in Bud half truths -
that is knowledge? Trader4 rationalizes "the pamphlet discussed a
plug-in protector; therefore it must protect from the typically
destructive surge". Trader4 - learn the technology. It also says that
earth ground is required to have protection. Why do you conveniently
ignore that part? Ignore that fact and you can claim the plug-in
protector does protect. It is called lying by ignoring the most
important fact. A plug-in protector can do something effective ... if
it has the earth ground that is does not have.

No, the 15ft elephant is that both the NIST and IEEE discuss home
surge protection, talk at length about plug-ins, say they can be used
effectively and safely and you continue to ignore it.

Here's the IEEE:

"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating
and
absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting
voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work
better than either one alone."





A plug-in protector will protect from one type of surge. A surge
made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances. But trader4
also denies that internal protection exists.

Again, making things up. Never said any such thing. I only said
that it makes no sense that you keep talking about the surge
protection contained in appliances/electronic gear and claim it is
effective. That built-in protection is very similar in concept and
works under the same limitations as a plug-in, ie no close by earth
ground. Or do your appliances come with an earth ground?



He even denies standards
such as IEC1000. He denies because he does not possess necessary
technical knowledge. Trader4 - it is a standard for the technically
informed. I don't expect you to understand it. All you need
understand is that protection inside appliances even makes indirect
surges irrelevant. Protection that may be overwhelmed by the
destructive surge - ie a direct lightning strike to utility wires. No
plug-in protector claims to provide that protection.


Again, another blatant lie. Never denied any such thing.




Trader4 ignores what responsible engineers do routine for real world
protection. As in every telco switching center, the protector is
close to earth ground, AND up to 50 meters distant from electronics.
Separation between electronics and protector is part of the
protection. Apparently trader4 still does not even grasp the
significance of wire impedance as stated in "Protecting Electrical
Devices from Lightning Transients" at:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807127

So, I guess the IEEE and NIST recommendations were written and
reviewed by irresponsible engineers. Let's take a look at the
irresponsible, unqualified engineers that wrote the IEEE document that
says plug-ins work. I've posted the authors credentials below.
Hmmm, one of them is Chief Engineer at Cutler-Hammer. Another was
manager of lightning protector development at Bell Labs. You keep
spewing about how companies that make whole house suppressors and the
phone company know so much more about surge protection than anyone
else. And these engineers talk at length about using plug-ins, show
scenarios using them, and say:


"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating
and
absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting
voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work
better than either one alone."

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

Richard L. Cohen (Editor, Author) is a Consultant for
lightning and surge protection. He was Vice President of
Engineering at Panamax, Incorporated. Prior to joining
Panamax, he was the manager for lightning protector
development at Bell Laboratories. He started and was Chair of
the IEEE Surge Protection Device Working Group 3.6.10, for
multi-port surge protector standards, and is a member of the
UL Standards Technical Panels for low-voltage AC protectors
and lightning protection systems. Dr. Cohen is a Senior
Member of the IEEE, and a Fellow of the American Physical Society and
of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. He holds a B.S., M.S., and
Ph.D. in Physics,
and has seven patents, with four more applications pending. He has
authored over 200
research papers and reviews.
Doug Dorr (Author) is Director of Technology
Development at EPRI Solutions, Inc. He has been involved in
power quality research and surge protective device testing for
the past 14 years. He is the Vice Chair of the IEEE Surge
Protective Devices Main Committee and also Chair of the
Low-Voltage AC Surge Protective Device Working Group.
Mr. Dorr has been involved in development of more than a
dozen standards and currently chairs the 2005 revision to the
IEEE Emerald Book, an "IEEE Recommended Practice on
Power and Grounding Electronic Equipment". He is a Senior Member of
the IEEE, and
received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering, with electrical
concentration, from
the Indiana Institute of Technology in Fort Wayne, Indiana

James Funke (Associate Editor, Author) is Chief
Engineer of Eaton's Cutler-Hammer business unit. He was
previously Chief Engineer for Tycor International. He has
specialized in surge protection research throughout his career.
He is Chair of the IEC SC37A Technical Advisory Group
reporting to the Standards Council of Canada. He is also the
Chair of the CSA committee writing safety standards for
SPDs, and actively participates on Surge Protection
committees with NEMA and UL. Mr. Funke is contributing to
several IEEE SPD Committee working groups on surge protection, and has
received two
Working Group awards for contributions to surge protection standards.
He holds seven
surge protection patents, with three more applications pending. He is
an IEEE Senior
Member and has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
(1988) and a
Masters of Business Administration (2004).
Chuck Jensen (Author) is Senior Engineer with Duke
Power Company. He serves as a Power Quality Specialist,
providing consulting engineering services to customers of the
utility, and specifies and designs surge protection systems. He
is a Member of the IEEE, serving on several IEEE SPD
Committee working groups. Mr. Jensen also serves on the UL
Standards Technical Panel for Surge Protective Devices, STP
1449, and is a Registered Professional Engineer in the states
of North Carolina and South Carolina. He has a Bachelor of
Science degree in Electrical Engineering (1984).
S. Frank Waterer (Author) is a Staff Engineer at
Schneider Electric. He provides consulting engineering
services to commercial and industrial customers about power
distribution systems, power equipment applications,
grounding systems, protective relaying, ground fault
protection, and surge protection. He is a Member of IEEE and
is the Secretary of IEEE/SPDC. Mr. Waterer is a member of
numerous IEEE, UL, NEMA, and ANSI working groups and
technical committees relating to grounding and surge
protection. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
Engineering (1980).




Trader4, is simple math for wire impedance too complex? Did you
understand why EE Times discusses low wire impedance? Effective
protection means the surge must be earthed by low impedance
connections. That mean the 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection
provide by 'whole house' protectors AND a connection not available on
plug-in protectors. Could they be blunter? Effective protection is
about making a low impedance connection to earth. Effective
protection is not some protector absorbing surges as trader4 claims;
as he learned from retail salesman.

I'm sure you took whatever EE Times had to say completely out of
context or made things up, just like you do here, claiming I said
things that I never did. But, I think it is quite amusing that you
would resort to EE Times, which is basicly a newspaper, while
dismissing the 15ft elephant documents from IEEE, NIST, etc.




. Notice engineers (ie the engineer at WXIA) don't post insults to
prove effective protection. Where do they discuss plug-in
protectors? They don't. They are discussing protection that
works ... and that means earthing.

Trader4 - remember earthing - the 15 foot elephant you routinely
ignore because, well, you even deny damage comes from direct lightning
strikes.

Another lie. Never said any such thing.


Meanwhile effective protection from direct lightning strikes
even makes irrelevant trader4's indirect strikes (that are also made
irrelevant by protection inside appliances).

Why does trader4 invent damage from indirect strikes?

Another lie, didn't state that either.



The plug-in
protector is typically too grossly undersized (and no earthing) to
address direct strike damage. So he invents this straw man - the
indirect strike.

Another lie, I never even used the term indirect strike.




The informed homeowner ignores trader4 since his only prove come
from remarks of disparagement.


Now, after all the disparaging crap you've spewed, this one is real
special. But homeowners can decide who's advice is right and do what
they want after they read the NIST and IEEE recommendations:

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

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf




Do what every responsible
professional recommends. ARRL, US Air Force, every telephone company,
Telcordia, Polyphaser - an industry benchmark, IEEE green, emerald,
and red book (Bud conveniently forgets all those IEEE standards demand
earthing for protection), British Standard 6651, every commercial
broadcasting engineer, all electric companies, rocket launch
facilities, FAA communication towers, ... anyone who cannot have
damage from surges requires earthing for protection. Every high
reliability facility does not use plug-in protectors. They ignore
these trader4 myths. Even Ben Franklin demonstrated the concept in
1752. What provided protection for a church steeple? The connection
to and quality of earthing.

Trader4's denies it.

Another lie.


Every responsible source cites earthing as
essential. Earthing is the one system component that must always
exist for protection. Some protector systems don't even use
protectors. But still have that earth ground. From IEEE Standards
that trader4 repeatedly ignores and Bud intentionally misrepresents
(but then profits are at risk):
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.

From Bud's NIST citation:





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.
From an industry professional:
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such strikes
is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a strike,
it was due to a strike on the power company's lines knocking
*them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
low ohm DC path.

From the front page article in EE Times:

Providing a flow path for the lightning current is central to
effective lightning protection.
From another industry professional:
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to
ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning
protection device grounds the incoming signal connection
point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting
the threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance
(impedance) to ground where it is absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of
switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow
dissipation of the surge energy.

From IEEE Emerald Book which Bud routinely misrepresents:

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 and other grounded items
that personnel may be near or might simultaneously contact.

IEEE Green Book (Standard 142):



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. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5%



Again, you need to look at the whole picture. No where in any of the
above does it say that plug-ins don't provide any protection or can't
be used as part of a home protection strategy. Nor does it say they
are a fire hazhard. The balanced view for the homeowner regarding
surge protection is provided by highly credible engineers from IEEE
and NIST.

There is one curious note about the last paragraph though. You dis-
proved another one of your rants that hasn;t surfaced for a while.
You've ranted on in the past about how if there is any lightning
damage it's a human fault, because a properly designed system offers
100% protection. Clearly the last source refutes that.

w_tom wrote:

The same drivel, lies, and mischaracterization of what the IEEE and NIST
guides say. w_ still can’t see the elephant.


A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

And the same religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The
only question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the
IEEE and NIST guides say they are.

Still missing - link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. Still only w_’s opinions based on his religious
belief in earthing. Why can’t you find any links w_?


TV coax cable does not even need a protector. A properly installed
cable is earthed directly - no protector - where it enters the
building.

Doesn’t need a protector? The IEEE guide says “there is no requirement
to limit the voltage developed between the core and the sheath. .... The
only voltage limit is the breakdown of the F connectors, typically ~2–4
kV.” And "there is obviously the possibility of damage to TV tuners and
cable modems from the very high voltages that can be developed,
especially from nearby lightning." A plug-in suppressor will limit the
voltage from core to shield.

As usual w_ is at odds with the IEEE guide.


Still no answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list “each type of
surge”?
– What are w_’s connections to surge protection equipment
manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?
Why no answers to simple questions w_?


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

--
bud--

On Nov 13, 10:14 am, wrote:
Yes, keep posting pics of the handful of scary pictures from the
hundreds of millions of surge protectors in use. I can post pics of
car wrecks. Does that mean that all cars are inherently unsafe and
you should not own one?

A problem was not shown in 1 million pictures. The NC Fire Marshall
even describes why some fires occurred. To trader4, that proves the
threat does not exist. Another Trader4 post chock full of denial
reasoning twisted into factual proof. Bud posted his usual diatribe
of half truths? A Bud post is also factual proof? Why does trader4
use a Bud claim as proof? Oh. Otherwise trader4 must learn
technology? Trader4 even claims exploding MOVs provide safe
protection. Manufacturers say otherwise. Trader4 - why did you know
without first learning from manufacturer datasheets? Or am I assuming
you can comprehend technical numbers?

Trader4 posts resumes. That proves people recommend protectors
without earth ground? At least one of his 'experts' state that
protectors must be earthed to provide effective protection. Why did
trader4 forget to quote that part? Trader4 makes claims by posting
half facts. He has a big resume. Therefore he must say protectors
don't need earthing?

Examples from virtually every high reliability facility demonstrate
what the effective protector does - shunt, connect, clamp, divert a
destructive surge to earth. Manufacturers with far more responsible
names make effective 'whole house' protector. Why? More facts that
trader4 must ignore. Where is energy dissipated? Trader4 believes a
silly little one inch part will absorb all surge energy? Without
earthing, that surge energy is magically eliminated? Or too much
energy gets dissipated in grossly undersized plug-in protectors;
sometimes even creates 'scary pictures'. But trader4 says that
'scary picture' problem does not exist because not enough pictures
were provided. So surge energy must magically disappear. Trader4
says so. It must be true. Trader4 must ignore.

Quotes the NIST and IEEE say protectors must be earthed. Both
state surge energy must be dissipated in earth. How do trader4 and
Bud get around this? They just ignore the parts they don't like. It
is called denial. Simply ignore facts such as the essential need for
earthing. It is called propaganda - rationalization by half facts.
Trader4 just ignores.

Bud stopped quoting another favorite source because that source also
said plug-in (point of use) protectors can even be destructive to
adjacent appliances. How curious. Same was demonstrated on Page 42
Figure 8. Matzloff's statement of fact was so fundamental as to be
his first conclusion:
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.

Manufacturer specifications claim protection as trader4 and Bud
stated? Oh. Neither could provide one single manufacture spec
number. Why no numbers? Plug-in protector manufacturers do not
claim protection from the typically destructive surge. Why would they
claim protection that does not exist? Best is to say nothing -
ignore. No protection specs is trader4 proof that protection
exists. How simple. Manufacturer specification will not even list
the many types of surges - define no protection. That means
protection must exist? Since those numbers do not exist, then
protection must exist? Trader4 and Bud reasoning.

Why would the manufacturer claim protection? A $3 power strip with
some fancy paint and a few $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $150. Why
would the manufacturer risk such obscene profits with honesty? Since
the fanatical trader4 *automatically knows* by selectively ignoring
facts, then why confuse myths with numeric specs? Trader4 - where is
surge energy dissipated when the protector has no dedicated earthing?
Why does an EE Times report on electronics protection not discuss
protectors; only discuss earthing? Where must surge energy get
dissipated? Crickets.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Effective protection
means surges are earthed before entering the building. Effective
protection means a surge will not overwhelm protection already inside
the appliance. Effective protection grounds a surge so that energy is
dissipated harmlessly in earth; not 8000 volts destructively through
the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

Responsible companies have well earned reputations AND make
protectors with that 'all so critical' earthing connection. Effective
'whole house' protectors cost about $1 per protected appliance AND
will protect the most critical electronic devices such as GFCIs, smoke
detectors, and furnace. Many of those responsible manufacturer were
listed previously. Protection will only be as effective as its
earthing.

Some homes - especially those with two wire wall receptacles - must
have breaker box earthing upgraded to post 1990 code requirements. No
wiring changes are made inside the home. Surges earthed by one
'whole house' protector and 'upgraded earthing' means effective
protection - without rewiring the entire house, without 'scary
pictures', and without 8000 volts destructively through household
appliances.

How many millions of 'scary pictures' and how many thousands of
professional citations does trader4 need to admit a protector is only
as effective as its earth ground? trader4 ignores what he can't
understand - even when multiple IEEE Standards are quite blunt.
Eathing is where surge energy is dissipated. No earth ground means no
effective protection.

w_tom wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:14 am, wrote:
Yes, keep posting pics of the handful of scary pictures from the
hundreds of millions of surge protectors in use. I can post pics of
car wrecks. Does that mean that all cars are inherently unsafe and
you should not own one?

w_’s own hanford link is about "some older model" power strips and says
overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal
disconnects. That was 1998.

None of w_’s links says there is a problem with listed surge suppressors
manufactured after 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.


Bud stopped quoting another favorite source

The usual lie. w_ likes to misconstrue the views of Martzloff in this
paper.

because that source also
said plug-in (point of use) protectors can even be destructive to
adjacent appliances. How curious.
Matzloff's statement of fact was so fundamental as to be
his first conclusion:

w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994 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 [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what Martzloff says about them.

w_ just keeps posting the same drivel which has been debunked.


No earth ground means no effective protection.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are.

Still missing, as always. a link to another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. Still only w_’s opinions based on his
religious belief in earthing. Why should anyone believe your ravings w_?

And still no answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]."
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list “each type of
surge”?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
– What are w_’s connections to surge protection equipment
manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?
Why no answers to simple questions w_? Trader and I take apart w__'s
arguments, but poor w_ can't respond to what technical sources
really say.


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

--
bud--

On Nov 14, 11:21 am, bud-- wrote:
w_'s own hanford link is about "some older model" power strips and says
overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal
disconnects. That was 1998.

None of w_'s links says there is a problem with listed surge suppressors
manufactured after 1998.

Bud routinely lies. In the early 1980s, fire was a common threat
with plug-in protectors as even demosntrated by articles in PC
Magazine in two years. Then Underwriter's Laboratories created a
standard to reduce that threat in 1987 - not 1996. Bud would have you
believe those 'scary pictures' are protectors without the safety
backup. Bud would have you believe those 'scary pictures' are
protectors built before 1987. He will say any half truth to protect
profits. Profits - not protection - are the purpose of plug-in
protectors.

Bud still will not post manufacturer numeric specs that list each
type of surge and protection from that surge. He cannot. Plug-in
protectors without earthing cannot protect from a surge that typically
damages appliances. No spec numbers exist because the protector is
primarily for profits; not protection. No wonder grossly undersized
plug-in protectors may even create those 'scary pictures'. A properly
sized 'whole house' protector earths direct lightning strikes and
remains functional. That is what every protector must do - remain
functional so that the human does not even know a surge existed. Oh.
That will not promote sales?

UL1449 is the safety backup. A grossly undersized protector depends
on its backup system - just like Challenger was safe because primary o-
rings were burning through but backup (secondary) o-rings were always
stopping the explosion. Oh. Grossly undersized protectors are safe
because the back-up system usually works? Not always as even
demonstrated by that recent apartment building fire in Boston. As
demonstrated by the NC Fire Marshall.

BTW, a protector can completely fail during UL1449 testing and still
be approved. UL does not care whether the protecctor works. UL only
cares about that spark and fire threat to humans. Making the
protector disconnect during a surge faster means the protector can be
more undersized - and get a UL1449 approval. Grossly undersized
protectors can completely fail during UL testing and be approved.
UL1449 says nothing about effective protection. UL1449 was created to
1987 to reduce the frequency of those 'scary pictures' - a problem
that does not happen when the 'whole house' protector is properly
sized.

If a protector was properly sized, then consumers would not say, "My
protector sacrificed itself to save my computer". Being undersized
means a surge too small to overwhelm protection inside a computer,
instead, destroys the protector. Failure (no protection) actually
gets the naive to promote more protectors. More profits. With profits
at risk, Bud must say anything to avoid reality in those '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 :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

What is the purpose of a plug-in protector? As responsible sources
(quoted above) say, a protector must be earthed. No earth ground
means no effective protection. But if the protector has no earth
ground AND if the protector is grossly undersized, then a $3 power
strip with some $0.10 parts can be sold for $25 or $150. Tremendous
profit margin. Profits are the purpose of a protector without
earthing.

Cable companies install the best surge protection and without a
protector. Cable must be earthed where it enters the building.
Earthing determines protection. No protector necessary to provide the
best protection. Cable guys will even recommend removing a plug-in
protector. That grossly overpriced protector 1)provides no protection
(no earth ground), 2) degrades cable TV signal, and 3) may even earth
a surge destructively through the TV or some other device (as
demonstrated by the IEEE pamphlet on Page 42 Figure 8).

Why does that protector not even claim to provide protection in
numeric specs? What does Bud routinely avoid discussing to promote
sales? Earth ground. What has that earthing connection - makes $2000
or $3000 in plug-in protectors unnecessary? Don't ask Bud. He fears
you might learn why earthing is critical for protection. Instead view
the list of responsible manufactures who manufacturer one 'whole
house' protector. Superior protection with proper earthing for about
$1 per protected appliance. No 'scary pictures' of a sparking or
burning protector on the rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop papers:
just one 'whole house' protector.

How curious. That is the type of protector installed by every telco
in every town. Why do they also not use plug-in protectors? Telcos
learned over 100 years ago what is required for protection. Telcos
also do not need a fire threat. Telcos also do not waste money on
plug-in protectors.. Telcos routinely earth one 'whole house'
protector AND locate a protector where it provides better protection -
up to 50 meters distant from electronics. Better protector is not
adjacen to electronics.

Bud still does not provide manufacture spec numbers for each type of
surge. Better is to lie about UL1449 created in 1996. UL1449 was
created in 1987. Distorting reality and attacking those who provide
the whole story is Bud.

Bud will reply again. He must keep posting; get the last word.
Profits are at risk if you learn why effective protectors have that
earthing wire. No earth ground means no effective protection as every
responsible engineering agency says.

Engineering? Where are those engineeing specs for a plug-in
protectors? Why does Bud never provide those numbers? He cannot.
Manufacturer cannot claim protection that does not exist. Bud fears
you might learn about earth ground. Bud will even lie about UL1449 so
that you will ignore those 'scary pictures'. One properly earth
'whole house' protector eliminated the 'scary picture' problem and
actually does provide protection.

Even Martzloff says the plujg-in protector may even contribute to
damage of the adjacent appliance. How curious. That is the picture
on Page 42 Figure 8 provided by Bud. But again, no earth ground
means .... The surge earthed before entering the building means no
surges seeking earth ground, destructively, via household appliances.
Bud always knew that. But profits are at risk.

On Nov 14, 2:11 pm, wrote:
EARLY 1980's! Wasn't that over 25 years ago?

Surge protectors have existed for 100 years. UL1449 is 20 years
old. Even with UL1449 safety backup, some protectors create 'scary
pictures' such as the recent building fire on Louis Prang Street in
Boston. Did you read what the NC Fire Marshall reports? Did you read
what IEEE Standards (Red Book, Green Book, Emerald Book) all require
for protection? Or do you know otherwise because plug-in protectors
are sold in retail stores?

Radio Shack would not sell an ineffective product? Since Radio
Shack profits were so low last year, suddenly Radio Shack is offering
numerous Monster Cable products - which is Radio Shack's new
credibility.

Do you have a problem with those 20 or 30 professional citations
that all require earthing for protection? Or did you just ignore
them? Where are reasons to justify doubt? Where are your numbers?
Why do telcos, the US Air Force, Sun Microsystems, and other high
reliability organizations not do what Bud recommends? Where damage
cannot happen, routine is to not use plug-in protectors. High
reliability facility needs effective protection. Just because plug-in
protectors are sold in retail stores (at massive profit), does that
means plug-in protectors are useful? Of course not.

So many gold painted cables now sold in Radio Shack for maybe $10 -
when the same cable without gold sells for maybe $2. But it is sold
in Radio Shack. It costs more. Therefore it must be better? Same
reasoning justifies plug-in protectors. Monster Cable can sell
products for significantly more money because so many consumers never
ask "why?" It is more expensive; therefore it must be better? Does
salty@dog first ask "why"? Or do you automatically know plug-in
protectors are effective?

Monster also sells 'high tech' speaker wires for something
approaching $20. Does that mean speakers with 'high tech' speaker
wire sound better? Again, of course not.

Radio Shack sells Monster Cable plug-in protectors for $150. Does
that mean the protector provides protection? Of course not. It's a
Monster Cable product. Its purpose is profits just like gold painted
cables and 'high tech' speaker wire for better sound. Amazing how many
will buy 'high tech' speaker wire (not ask why) because the retail
salesman says it is better.

However show me. Show me why salty@dog knows a plug-in protector
does anything useful. It does not claim in specs. So many know it
must work because it is sold in stores? What does that prove? That
other "monster cable" type companies also know how to increase
profits.

One manufacturer - SL Waber - making this same protector (EP63 Power
Master) was more honest:
This Surge suppressor is not a lightning arrestor and may
not protect against lightning induced voltage surges.

Do you know something their engineers don't? Then please post it.
If you know a plug-in protector actually provides protection, then
simply post spec numbers that lists protection from each type of
surge. Show me. Where are your numbers?

Why would you spend $2000+ for plug-in protectors when one 'whole
house' protector for tens (maybe 100) times less money will actually
provide protection? Or do you just know only because plug-in
protectors are sold in retail stores and recommended by a Best Buy
salesman?

Listed were responsible companies that sell protectors with the
essential earthing wire. Square D, Leviton, GE, etc. Are they
scammers? Of course not. What does every engineering citation say?
An effective protector will *divert* a surge to earth. Protectors
from responsible companies have that dedicated earthing wire. Costs
less. Lasts longer. Not located where fire danger is greatest.

Where is surge energy dissipated without damage? Please salty@dog,
tell us where surge energy will be dissipated if the protector does
not have that short earthing connection? Surge enegy is dissipated in
earth. Do you really believe a silly little one inch component
inside a protector will stop what three miles of sky could not? A
protector without that earth ground must absorb what three miles of
sky could not? These are the damning questions you should be asking
even long before same type myths also promoted Saddam's WMDs.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Bud must post
incessantly. Otherwise profits on protectors without earthing are at
risk. What would happen if stores suddenly started selling only
effective protectors? Well Radio Shack would no longer make how much
profit selling a $3 power strip with some $0.10 protector parts for
$150. If it actually claims surge protection, well, show me. Where
are those numbers? Bud cannot. Show me the numbers.

w_tom wrote:
On Nov 14, 2:11 pm, wrote:
EARLY 1980's! Wasn't that over 25 years ago?

Yea, but that’s all poor w_ can find.

And that may be when he stopped thinking.


No earth ground means no effective protection.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.


Bud must post
incessantly.

w_ must post incessantly because the religious foundation of his world
has been challenged. Just like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness.

But of course no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. Still only w_'s opinions based on his religious
belief in earthing. Do ya suppose no one agrees with you w_? Too bad w_,
seems like no pigeons here.

And still no answers to really simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]."
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- What are w_'s connections to surge protection equipment
manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?
What’s the matter w_? The questions are simple?


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

--
bud--

On Nov 15, 6:39 am, wrote:
w_tom wrote:
Surge protectors have existed for 100 years. UL1449 is 20 years
old. Even with UL1449 safety backup, some protectors create 'scary
pictures' such as the recent building fire on Louis Prang Street in
Boston.

What a complete (and dangerous) BOZO!

salty@dog *knows* without any facts. He denies. That makes him
knowledgeable? UL1449 addressed spark and fire issues in 1987 - long
before the 1996 claim from Bud. In the late 1980s, backup protection
(ie thermal fuses) were installed inside protectors to disconnect the
protector circuit (leave the appliance connected; still exposed to
surges). Still those 'scary picture' problems remain. No insulting
by salty@dog or Bud changes reality. One would locate undersized
devices on a rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop papers? Yes, one
who knows like salty@dog - who knows so well using insults.

Responsible posters including fire departments provide these '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 :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

In one, protector components are completely removed. Protector
light still says the protector is OK? Where is the honesty?

Learn why plug-in protectors are recommended. salty@dog without a
single technical fact knows it must work. After all, insults prove he
is smarter.

Plug-in protectors are even sold alongside 'high tech' speaker
wire. Both must be better because both are grossly overpriced? Who
sells plug-in protectors? Monster Cable among others. Who sells one
'whole house' protector? Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, GE, etc
The latter sell a type of product even used by your telco in all their
computer centers. Telco does not use Monster Cable products. Telcos
do what salty@dog did not. Learn the technology.

According to salty@dog's insults, Monster Cable is more responsible
than Siemens. That is how plug-in protectors are promoted.

Where are those numeric spec numbers from a plug-in protector
manufacturer that claims protection? Even salty@dog cannot copy and
post those numbers. Why? Manufacturer does not claim to provide that
protection. But salty@dog does?

Who recommends plug-in protectors? Those who prove only by
insults. Provided above are what virtually every high tech factility
does for protection. They don't use plug-in protectors because surge
protection is needed.

On Nov 15, 3:57 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Nov 15, 6:39 am, wrote:

w_tom wrote:
Surge protectors have existed for 100 years. UL1449 is 20 years
old. Even with UL1449 safety backup, some protectors create 'scary
pictures' such as the recent building fire on Louis Prang Street in
Boston.

What a complete (and dangerous) BOZO!

salty@dog *knows* without any facts. He denies. That makes him
knowledgeable? UL1449 addressed spark and fire issues in 1987 - long
before the 1996 claim from Bud. In the late 1980s, backup protection
(ie thermal fuses) were installed inside protectors to disconnect the
protector circuit (leave the appliance connected; still exposed to
surges). Still those 'scary picture' problems remain. No insulting
by salty@dog or Bud changes reality. One would locate undersized
devices on a rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop papers? Yes, one
who knows like salty@dog - who knows so well using insults.

Responsible posters including fire departments provide these '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:
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol orhttp://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPP...
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

I can show you pictures of car wrecks too. Does that make all cars
unsafe and something that is to be avoided? If they are so unsafe
and the source of many fires, why is it that UL, who should know a
hell of a lot more about this than you, continues to give them their
OK?




In one, protector components are completely removed. Protector
light still says the protector is OK? Where is the honesty?

Learn why plug-in protectors are recommended. salty@dog without a
single technical fact knows it must work. After all, insults prove he
is smarter.

Plug-in protectors are even sold alongside 'high tech' speaker
wire. Both must be better because both are grossly overpriced? Who
sells plug-in protectors? Monster Cable among others. Who sells one
'whole house' protector? Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, GE, etc
The latter sell a type of product even used by your telco in all their
computer centers. Telco does not use Monster Cable products. Telcos
do what salty@dog did not. Learn the technology.

According to salty@dog's insults, Monster Cable is more responsible
than Siemens. That is how plug-in protectors are promoted.

Your delusions and false attributions continue to be amazing. Salty
never even mentioned Monster Cable or Siemens. Only you did.



Where are those numeric spec numbers from a plug-in protector
manufacturer that claims protection? Even salty@dog cannot copy and
post those numbers. Why? Manufacturer does not claim to provide that
protection. But salty@dog does?

Who recommends plug-in protectors?


IEEE and NIST

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

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

There's proof for you without insult. BTW, we're still waiting for
your source that says plug-ins are ineffective, can't be used as part
of a protection strategy, are fire hazhards and unsafe.

Let's check the score on proof. Bud and I have:

IEEE
NIST

And you have?

Zippo


Those who prove only by
insults. Provided above are what virtually every high tech factility
does for protection. They don't use plug-in protectors because surge
protection is needed.

On Nov 15, 4:37 pm, wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:57 pm, w_tom wrote:
I can show you pictures of car wrecks too. Does that make all cars
unsafe and something that is to be avoided?

Run stop signs because those scary pictures did not happen. Or
learn from others who installed a plug-in protector ... that does not
even claim to provide protection. Or learn from both the IEEE and
NIST who define what is required to make a protector effective ...
earth ground. What happens when the protector is not properly
earthed? Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000 volts earthed destructively through
an adjacent TV. No wonder high reliability facilities don't use
plug-in protectors; insted use a 'whole house' type protector.

Since science is not promoted on retail store shelves, then mockery
and insults prove protectors that require tens or 100 times more
money also must be better.

When does salty@dog, trader4, or Bud post manufacturer specs for
that protection? Oh. No such numbers exist. No wonder telcos all
over the world do not use plug-in protectors. Effective protection is
required.

w_tom wrote:

Or learn from both the IEEE and
NIST who define what is required to make a protector effective ...
earth ground.

The same drivel repeated.

Where is your link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

Where are your answers to really simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]."
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- What are w_'s connections to surge protection equipment
manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?

Why should anyone believe you?


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

--
bud--

On Nov 16, 10:51 am, bud-- wrote:
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work

Of course they work. They protect only from a type of surge that
does not damage electronics. It may even earth another type of surge
8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV. Page 42 Figure 8.

Meanwhile, a properly earthing 'whole house' protector eliminates
all surges. The surge that does not enter the building will not find
a path to earth 8000 volts destructively through that TV - with or
without a plug-in protector.

Bud fears you might not spend $25 or $150 on a three dollar power
strip with some $0.10 parts. Learning why effective protectors have
that 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection would harm profits. One
'whole house' protectors ... or $2000 or $3000 in plug-in protectors
that don't even claim to provide protection. Bud claims the plug-in
protector is complete protection. How? Where is the earthing wire
required even in Bud's citations?

No earth ground means no effective protection. One 'whole house'
protector properly earthed means the homeowner need not even know
surges exist. But then profits would be at risk. So Bud replies
incessantly. Half truths and deceit are necessary to protect obscene
profit margins.

Ask Bud. Where are the spec numbers for a plug-in protection that
claim protection from each type of surge? He must post anything to
avoid that question. Why? Plug-in protectors don't even claim that
protection. So Bud never provides spec numbers.

w_tom wrote:


No earth ground means no effective protection.

And the same drivel repeated.

No link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

No answers to really simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]."
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- What are w_'s connections to surge protection equipment
manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?

Why should anyone believe you?


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

--
bud--

On Nov 17, 10:25 am, bud-- wrote:
Why should anyone believe you?

A plug-in protector promoter only had to provide manufacturer spec
numbers that list each type of surge and protection from that surge.
He cannot do that because - as even his NIST and IEEE citations state
- the protector needs that short connection to earth ground. Since it
has no dedicated earthing wire, then better is not answer the question
- provide no specs. That is how myths become lies.

How curious, after being asked maybe 300 times for spec numbers, the
promoter of half truths still provides nothing. He cannot. Every
responsible source says a protector works by earthing. *Diverting* a
surge to earth ground. No earth ground means no effective
protection. So a troll goes everywhere challenging reality and lying
to others. Profits are at risk. Bud must post myths and personal
attacks incessantly.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as numerous
IEEE Standards, et al, state - bluntly.

w_tom wrote:
On Nov 17, 10:25 am, bud-- wrote:
Why should anyone believe you?

A plug-in protector promoter

Ho-hum. The “old political trick” repetition #29.

only had to provide manufacturer spec
numbers that list each type of surge

Lacking valid technical arguments poor w_ has to invent issues. Plug-in
suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That covers all surge modes.

w_’s favored SquareD service panel suppressors do not list “each type of
surge”.


A protector is only as effective as its earth ground

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

But still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

And still no answers to really simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]."
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- What are w_'s connections to surge protection equipment
manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list “each type of
surge”?


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

--
bud--