I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway
- assume a usual little surge protector with three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G.
Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard
wires to the receptacle that it's plugged into? I'm guessing that it
really doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level
of protection depends somewhat on the distance from the protector. Also
if a surge destroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not
"downstream" of it.

Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with
repairing appliances due to a big surge about a week and a half ago, I
thought that adding surge protection to my furnace and air filter would
be a good idea. Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is
hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. There is a
switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. The switch controls the
furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. A
humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the
unswitched side. I figured the best I could do, without adding some
kind of hardwired surge protection, was to plug it into the unswitched
recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection
as if it were inline, with the caveat that if a surge destroyed the MOVs
in the surge protector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace
before the breaker tripped. Am I correct?

Are there any common, commercially available point of use surge
protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the
side of a piece of equipment? I am thinking that one at the dishwasher
might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N
MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least
one instance

thanks,

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway
- assume a usual little surge protector with three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G.
Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard
wires to the receptacle that it's plugged into? I'm guessing that it
really doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level
of protection depends somewhat on the distance from the protector. Also
if a surge destroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not
"downstream" of it.

Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with
repairing appliances due to a big surge about a week and a half ago, I
thought that adding surge protection to my furnace and air filter would
be a good idea. Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is
hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. There is a
switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. The switch controls the
furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. A
humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the
unswitched side. I figured the best I could do, without adding some
kind of hardwired surge protection, was to plug it into the unswitched
recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection
as if it were inline, with the caveat that if a surge destroyed the MOVs
in the surge protector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace
before the breaker tripped. Am I correct?

Are there any common, commercially available point of use surge
protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the
side of a piece of equipment? I am thinking that one at the dishwasher
might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N
MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least
one instance

thanks,

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

The only relevance to upstream / downstream of a typical MOV type surge
suppresser would relate to a fuse or breaker that would be tripped when
the MOV(s) create their short circuit.

So, yes, a MOV containing suppresser would provide some protection to
other devices on the circuit, though in the event of a sustained over
voltage like you seem to have had from the transformer failure, if the
MOV trips it's own fuse before the fuse or breaker at the panel trips,
upstream loads would be unprotected.

Most of the suppressers intended for service entrance mounting could be
installed most anywhere, and many are designed to mount to a typical
1/2" knockout on any panel or box.

One of the main panel suppressers would in all probability clamped and
tripped the main breaker on your panel thus isolating your whole house
from the transformer fault.

Pete C. wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway
- assume a usual little surge protector with three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G.
Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard
wires to the receptacle that it's plugged into? I'm guessing that it
really doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level
of protection depends somewhat on the distance from the protector. Also
if a surge destroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not
"downstream" of it.

Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with
repairing appliances due to a big surge about a week and a half ago, I
thought that adding surge protection to my furnace and air filter would
be a good idea. Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is
hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. There is a
switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. The switch controls the
furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. A
humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the
unswitched side. I figured the best I could do, without adding some
kind of hardwired surge protection, was to plug it into the unswitched
recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection
as if it were inline, with the caveat that if a surge destroyed the MOVs
in the surge protector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace
before the breaker tripped. Am I correct?

Are there any common, commercially available point of use surge
protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the
side of a piece of equipment? I am thinking that one at the dishwasher
might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N
MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least
one instance

thanks,

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel


The only relevance to upstream / downstream of a typical MOV type surge
suppresser would relate to a fuse or breaker that would be tripped when
the MOV(s) create their short circuit.

So, yes, a MOV containing suppresser would provide some protection to
other devices on the circuit, though in the event of a sustained over
voltage like you seem to have had from the transformer failure, if the
MOV trips it's own fuse before the fuse or breaker at the panel trips,
upstream loads would be unprotected.

Most of the suppressers intended for service entrance mounting could be
installed most anywhere, and many are designed to mount to a typical
1/2" knockout on any panel or box.

One of the main panel suppressers would in all probability clamped and
tripped the main breaker on your panel thus isolating your whole house
from the transformer fault.

Do you have any examples of a main panel suppressor like that? The only
ones I've seen either attach to or replace a double pole branch circuit
breaker not the main.

The idea of using an add-on panel suppressor an excellent idea, although
possibly pricey. Is there anything to the average suppressor besides
three MOVs and a fuse? I certainly could handle fabbing something like
that myself, and there is a fairly decent electronics supply somewhat
nearby - not convenient, but not an insane drive either.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway
- assume a usual little surge protector with three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G.
Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard
wires to the receptacle that it's plugged into? I'm guessing that it
really doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level
of protection depends somewhat on the distance from the protector. Also
if a surge destroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not
"downstream" of it.

Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with
repairing appliances due to a big surge about a week and a half ago, I
thought that adding surge protection to my furnace and air filter would
be a good idea. Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is
hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. There is a
switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. The switch controls the
furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. A
humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the
unswitched side. I figured the best I could do, without adding some
kind of hardwired surge protection, was to plug it into the unswitched
recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection
as if it were inline, with the caveat that if a surge destroyed the MOVs
in the surge protector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace
before the breaker tripped. Am I correct?

Are there any common, commercially available point of use surge
protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the
side of a piece of equipment? I am thinking that one at the dishwasher
might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N
MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least
one instance

thanks,

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel


The only relevance to upstream / downstream of a typical MOV type surge
suppresser would relate to a fuse or breaker that would be tripped when
the MOV(s) create their short circuit.

So, yes, a MOV containing suppresser would provide some protection to
other devices on the circuit, though in the event of a sustained over
voltage like you seem to have had from the transformer failure, if the
MOV trips it's own fuse before the fuse or breaker at the panel trips,
upstream loads would be unprotected.

Most of the suppressers intended for service entrance mounting could be
installed most anywhere, and many are designed to mount to a typical
1/2" knockout on any panel or box.

One of the main panel suppressers would in all probability clamped and
tripped the main breaker on your panel thus isolating your whole house
from the transformer fault.

Do you have any examples of a main panel suppressor like that? The only
ones I've seen either attach to or replace a double pole branch circuit
breaker not the main.

The idea of using an add-on panel suppressor an excellent idea, although
possibly pricey. Is there anything to the average suppressor besides
three MOVs and a fuse? I certainly could handle fabbing something like
that myself, and there is a fairly decent electronics supply somewhat
nearby - not convenient, but not an insane drive either.

Beyond MOVs, the only other simple suppresser technology I'm aware of
are gas discharge tubes which operate similarly. Other suppresser
technologies are more complex.

The main panel suppressers aren't all expensive. The QO Surge Breaker I
use was I think around $60, though of course it isn't a knockout mount
version. I'm pretty sure there are a number of sub $100 options for
basic panel suppressers.

If you want to DIY something, Digi-Key is a good source for the parts.
It's not magic, but for good design you do have to pay attention to
conductor sizes, insulation ratings and component layout so you don't
have unexpected faults when the suppresser tries to do it's job.

Nate Nagel wrote:
I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway
- assume a usual little surge protector with three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G.
Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard wires
to the receptacle that it's plugged into? I'm guessing that it really
doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level of
protection depends somewhat on the distance from the protector. Also if
a surge destroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not
"downstream" of it.

Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with
repairing appliances due to a big surge about a week and a half ago, I
thought that adding surge protection to my furnace and air filter would
be a good idea. Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is
hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. There is a
switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. The switch controls the
furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. A
humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the
unswitched side. I figured the best I could do, without adding some
kind of hardwired surge protection, was to plug it into the unswitched
recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection
as if it were inline, with the caveat that if a surge destroyed the MOVs
in the surge protector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace
before the breaker tripped. Am I correct?

Are there any common, commercially available point of use surge
protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the
side of a piece of equipment? I am thinking that one at the dishwasher
might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N
MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least
one instance

thanks,

nate

The problem with using a downstream surge protector for an upstream item is
that the inductance in the wiring between the upstream connection point and
the surge protector may keep the spike from being suppressed. The inductance
works to help suppress the spike for anything downstream of the surge protector.

I know there isn't much inductance in that short a piece of wire, but for
fast spikes it is an important part of the suppression system.

Bill

On May 21, 7:02*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway
- assume a usual little surge protector with three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G.
* Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard
wires to the receptacle that it's plugged into? *I'm guessing that it
really doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level
of protection depends somewhat on the distance from the protector. *Also
if a surge destroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not
"downstream" of it.

Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with
repairing appliances due to a big surge about a week and a half ago, I
thought that adding surge protection to my furnace and air filter would
be a good idea. *Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is
hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. *There is a
switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. *The switch controls the
furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. *A
humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the
unswitched side. *I figured the best I could do, without adding some
kind of hardwired surge protection, was to plug it into the unswitched
recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection
as if it were inline, with the caveat that if a surge destroyed the MOVs
in the surge protector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace
before the breaker tripped. *Am I correct?

Are there any common, commercially available point of use surge
protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the
side of a piece of equipment? *I am thinking that one at the dishwasher
might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N
MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least
one instance

thanks,

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

I'm speaking a bit out of my league here, but there might be another
option for catastrophic protection. We routinely have electricians
install lightning suppression at the main service level to protect our
buildings. It won't solve the problem of small spikes but it will fix
the big ones such as lightning or a transformer that goes bad. We've
never had one blow, but if they do it's a "call the eletrician"
thing. I'm not messing with a 600amp service.

Nate Nagel wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway
- assume a usual little surge protector with three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G.
Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard
wires to the receptacle that it's plugged into? I'm guessing that it
really doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level
of protection depends somewhat on the distance from the protector. Also
if a surge destroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not
"downstream" of it.

As Bill posted, the voltage at the outlet will be higher than at the
plug-in suppressor because of the significant impedance of wire to
surges. Minimizing the wire length in a service panel is very important
because currents are high. At your furnace currents will be much lower
because of the impedance of the branch circuit. If the surge current to
the suppressor was 500A and leads were 39" the voltage at the receptacle
would be about 325V higher than at the suppressor.


Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with
repairing appliances due to a big surge about a week and a half ago, I
thought that adding surge protection to my furnace and air filter would
be a good idea. Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is
hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. There is a
switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. The switch controls the
furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. A
humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the
unswitched side. I figured the best I could do, without adding some
kind of hardwired surge protection, was to plug it into the unswitched
recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection
as if it were inline, with the caveat that if a surge destroyed the MOVs
in the surge protector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace
before the breaker tripped. Am I correct?

Suppressors are required (since 1998) to have a thermal disconnect that
disconnects failing MOVs. I believe the thermal disconnect is likely to
disconnect the MOV before any breaker. Second would probably be the
breaker on the plug-in suppressor. For the overvoltage you had, none of
these, or the panel breakers, are guaranteed to safely disconnect.


Are there any common, commercially available point of use surge
protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the
side of a piece of equipment? I am thinking that one at the dishwasher
might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N
MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least
one instance

What you were hit with is temporary overvoltage, not a surge. It is not
easy to protect from overvoltage. But what you were hit with is quite
uncommon.

I would suggest reinstalling a service panel suppressor and letting that
protect the furnace and dishwasher (from surges, not major overvoltage).

It shouldn’t be hard to find a KO mounted suppressor. Should have a
ground wire in addition to hot and neutral.



The only relevance to upstream / downstream of a typical MOV type surge
suppresser would relate to a fuse or breaker that would be tripped when
the MOV(s) create their short circuit.
So, yes, a MOV containing suppresser would provide some protection to
other devices on the circuit, though in the event of a sustained over
voltage like you seem to have had from the transformer failure, if the
MOV trips it's own fuse before the fuse or breaker at the panel trips,
upstream loads would be unprotected.

Most of the suppressers intended for service entrance mounting could be
installed most anywhere, and many are designed to mount to a typical
1/2" knockout on any panel or box.

One of the main panel suppressers would in all probability clamped and
tripped the main breaker on your panel thus isolating your whole house
from the transformer fault.

Do you have any examples of a main panel suppressor like that? The only
ones I've seen either attach to or replace a double pole branch circuit
breaker not the main.

The closest ones would be the breaker type. Wired ones all probably
connect to a branch breaker. In either case it is a question whether the
thermal protection would disconnect before the main. I would bet on the
thermal disconnect.


The idea of using an add-on panel suppressor an excellent idea, although
possibly pricey. Is there anything to the average suppressor besides
three MOVs and a fuse?

Thermal disconnects that reacts to the heat of a failing MOV.

I certainly could handle fabbing something like
that myself, and there is a fairly decent electronics supply somewhat
nearby - not convenient, but not an insane drive either.

I made my own plug-in suppressor long ago. Later I decided it was not a
good idea to use because it does not have the thermal disconnect that
suppressors now have. If you make one, make it to be safe if a MOV
catastrophically fails.

--
bud--

Where damage is not acceptable, that separation between protector
and electronics increases protection. For example, you telco connects
their $multi-million computer directly to wires all over town. It may
suffer about 100 surges during every thunderstorm - without damage.
To be effective, a protector is located up to 50 meters from the
computer AND as close as possible to earth ground.

What provides protection to your furnace or dishwasher? Not the
protector. Protection is earth ground. The effective protector
connects surges to earth ... better when distant from the appliance.

Why is an H-N protector ineffective? Surge on both wires ignores an
H-N protector; continues on to earth ground destructively through a
furnace. Effective protection connects each wire (H N G) to earth
(not to each other). Separation between protector and furnace means
even less surge finds earth via the furnace. Others also describe how
and why a 'whole house' protector is so effective because it makes
that shortest connection to earth.

Where does surge energy get dissipated? Any protector that somehow
makes surge energy disappear (ie H-N) is mythical. From the NIST:
What these protective devices do is neither suppress
nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground,
where it can do no harm.
That surge energy must be dissipated. Effective protection means
energy is dissipated harmlessly in earth.

Why does separation increase surge protection? Longer wire
increases impedance. Separation means a surge is less likely to find
earth ground via the furnace. Shorter wire (protector to earth) means
less impedance (as BillGill, et al have noted). Catastrophic surge
must obtain earth via a breaker box earth ground rod; not
destructively via the furnace. More reasons why a protector is only
as effective as its earth ground and why MOVs too close to the furnace
don't provide effective protection.

Appliances contain internal protection that make smaller surges
(temporary overvoltage) irrelevant. Why is one 'whole house'
protector so effective? A catastrophic surge earthed before entering
a building will not overwhelm protection inside an appliance or
furnace. To be effective on catastrophic surges, a protector needs
that short (ie less than 10 foot) connection to earth ground. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Even better, the
superior protection costs about $1 per protected appliance; not a
ridiculous $25 or $150 for a plug-in protector.

On May 21, 7:02 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway
- assume a usual littlesurgeprotectorwith three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G.
Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard
wires to the receptacle that it's plugged into? I'm guessing that it
really doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level
of protection depends somewhat on the distance from theprotector. Also
if asurgedestroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not
"downstream" of it.

Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with
repairing appliances due to a bigsurgeabout a week and a half ago, I
thought that addingsurgeprotection to my furnace and air filter would
be a good idea. Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is
hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. There is a
switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. The switch controls the
furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. A
humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the
unswitched side. I figured the best I could do, without adding some
kind of hardwiredsurgeprotection, was to plug it into the unswitched
recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection
as if it were inline, with the caveat that if asurgedestroyed the MOVs
in thesurgeprotector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace
before the breaker tripped. Am I correct?

Are there any common, commercially available point of usesurge
protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the
side of a piece of equipment? I am thinking that one at the dishwasher
might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N
MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least
one instance

w_tom wrote:

Where damage is not acceptable, that separation between protector
and electronics increases protection.

Provide a source that agrees with "separation".

For reliable information on surges and surge protection read a guide
from the IEEE at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf
Or a guide 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.


What provides protection to your furnace or dishwasher? Not the
protector. Protection is earth ground. The effective protector
connects surges to earth ... better when distant from the appliance.

If a strong surge produces a current to earth of 1,000A and the earthing
electrode has a very good resistance to earth of 10 ohms, the 'ground'
at the service panel will rise 10,000V above 'absolute' earth potential.
The protection of a service panel suppressor is largely keeping the
voltage between H-N-G at the panel at a low voltage. Also required is
keeping the voltage from phone and cable wires to power wires at a low
voltage. That requires using a short 'ground' wire from the phone and
cable entry protectors to the 'ground' at the power service. All wires
will float up to 10,000V together.

If the earthing electrode is only a ground rod, about 70% of the
voltage drop is in the first 3 feet from the electrode. There will be
over 7,000V from service 'ground' to earth beyond 3 feet from the rod.
The furnace is likely to sit on a conductive concrete floor over 3 feet
from the ground rod. There may be over 7,000V from power wires to
'ground' at the furnace.

The IEEE guide has a similar example for equipment like pad mounted A/C
compressor/condenser units (pdf page 43). The guide says "Only an
appropriate protector, mounted *at the equipment*, bonding between all
line wires, neutral, and ground, can prevent damage." [Emphasis added.]
That is exactly counter to what w_ says.

w_'s comments are, as usual, simple minded and based on a religious
belief in earthing.


Why is an H-N protector ineffective? Surge on both wires ignores an
H-N protector; continues on to earth ground destructively through a
furnace.

A suppressor at the furnace would clamp from H-N, H-G, N-G. It would not
just clamp H-N. The voltage between H-N-G at the furnace would be safe
at the furnace.

From the NIST:

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are
"the easiest solution".

Plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage between H-G,
N-G, H-N, just like at the service in the example above. Earthing
occurs, but not primarily through a plug-in suppressor.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
is only by earthing. As usual, it leads him to conclusions at odds with
experts.

For real science, read the IEEE and NIST guides.

--
bud--

On May 25, 3:03*am, bud-- wrote:
* If the earthing electrode is only a ground rod, about 70% of the
voltage drop is in the first 3 feet from the electrode. There will be
over 7,000V from service 'ground' to earth beyond 3 feet from the rod.
The furnace is likely to sit on a conductive concrete floor over 3 feet
from the ground rod. *There may be over 7,000V from power wires to
'ground' at the furnace.

Bud promotes for plug-in protectors and will say anything to avoid
admitting his conflict of interest. The effective surge protector
makes a very short connection to earth. Then it increases that
protection by increasing the distance between protector and protected
electronics. IOW it must have lowest impedance to earth ground AND
higher impedance to electronics. What determines impedance? To lower
impedance, that earthing wire must be short, have no sharp bends, no
splices, separated from other conductors, and not inside metallic
conduit. All these engineering facts are ignored by Bud who promotes
protectors without any earthing.

So go to what Electrical Engineers say. Electrical Engineering
Times is blunt about what provides protection. Notice they don't
discuss plug-in protectors. Protection is defined by what provides
that protection: earth ground and the short connection to earth
ground. The article is quite blunt about what it defines: "Protecting
Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". Both top of the front
page articles are found at:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807127
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807830

This is what engineers said even seventy years ago. This
contradicts what a sales promoter (Bud) posts. Both articles are for
engineers - not for sales promoters who hype mythical protection from
plug-in protectors. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

So Bud starts his insults of this poster as he does everywhere. The
plug-in protector claims to provide protection? Where? For maybe the
600th time, Bud is challenged top provide a single plug-in
manufacturer spec that claims protection. Bud will not. No plug-in
manufacturer will claim protection from the destructive type of surge
in manufacturer specs. Why? The protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. A plug-in protector - as made so obvious in
Electrical Engineering Times - does not provide effective protection.

Let's see. We install one 'whole house' protector with earthing
that meets and exceed post 1990 electrical code for maybe $1 per
protected appliance. Or we spend $25 or $150 per protected appliance
for what Bud recommends. Do increased profits mean better protection?
Or do you install what telcos have installed routinely (for no damage)
even 100 years ago? The protector is only as effective as its earth
ground - as even Ben Franklin demonstrated with lightning rods in
1752. Why does Bud repeatedly oppose this and then insult this
poster? Profits are at risk.

Why do responsible manufacturers (ie Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Square
D, Intermatic, Keison, Intermatic, Siemens, GE, etc) sell 'whole
house' protectors? Why do less responsible manufacturers such as APC,
Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable avoid all discussion about
earthing? The former sell effective protectors. Latter sell
protectors that maximize profits. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - as even Bud's own citations state - bluntly. Two
'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times
entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients"
define what provides surge protection - the single point earth
ground. The effective protector makes a short (ie 'less than 10
foot') connection to that earthing. Bud will post anything to deny
this really - and still cannot provide a single manufacturer spec to
promote his sales myths.

The OP asked for furnace and dish washer protection. That means
surges are earthed before entering a building AND kept away from
electronics. Any protection that might work at the furnace is already
inside that furnace. Protection that can be overwhelmed if a surge is
not earthed before entering a building. As others here have noted,
the 'whole house' protector is a superior solution AND costs less
money. Less Money? Bud will post anything to protect those excessive
profit margins on plug-in protectors (from less responsible
manufacturers). Bud will not even admit who he promotes for.

Furnace protection (and everything else in the building) means one
‘whole house’ protector and upgraded ‘single point’ earth ground.

Did Bud forget to post what the IEEE says in Standards? He does
this often. From the 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 ...

Bud is correct. A properly earthed ‘whole house’ protector will
only be maybe 99.5% effective. What do you want for something that
costs about $1 per protected appliance? After all, the $150 plug-in
protector can even contribute to damage of adjacent appliances. Oh.
Did Bud forget to mention that part? Profits are at risk.

w_tom wrote:
On May 25, 3:03 am, bud-- wrote:
If the earthing electrode is only a ground rod, about 70% of the
voltage drop is in the first 3 feet from the electrode. There will be
over 7,000V from service 'ground' to earth beyond 3 feet from the rod.
The furnace is likely to sit on a conductive concrete floor over 3 feet
from the ground rod. There may be over 7,000V from power wires to
'ground' at the furnace.

Bud promotes for plug-in protectors and will say anything to avoid
admitting his conflict of interest.

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ tries to discredit opponents, as
usual. My only association with surge protectors is I have some.


So Bud starts his insults of this poster as he does everywhere.

The only insult so far is from w_ above.

For maybe the
600th time, Bud is challenged top provide a single plug-in
manufacturer spec that claims protection.

Posted often and ignored.


Why do responsible manufacturers (ie Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Square
D, Intermatic, Keison, Intermatic, Siemens, GE, etc) sell 'whole
house' protectors?

Why do "responsible manufacturers" - all of w_'s list except SquareD -
sell plug-in suppressors?

Why does SquareD say with its "best" service panel suppressor
"electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing
plug-in ... devices at the point of use" ?


The OP asked for furnace and dish washer protection. That means
surges are earthed before entering a building AND kept away from
electronics.

Why does the IEEE guide say (for a case similar to the furnace) "Only an
appropriate protector, mounted *at the equipment*, bonding between all
line wires, neutral, and ground, can prevent damage"?


Did Bud forget to post what the IEEE says in Standards? He does
this often. From the IEEE Green Book (Standard 142):

Did w_ forget to post that the IEEE "Emerald" Book says plug-in
suppressors are effective? He does this often.

Where is any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective?
Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
Why does the NIST guide say plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?
Where is any source that agrees with w_ about "separation"?
Why doesn’t w_ ever answer questions?
Why doesn’t w_ get treatment for his obsessive-compulsive disease?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

On May 26, 1:51*am, bud-- wrote:
Why doesn’t w_ ever answer questions?
Why doesn’t w_ get treatment for his obsessive-compulsive disease?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say a protector requires earth
ground. Only Bud denies what his own citations require for effective
protection. Well, if a plug-in protector provided that protection,
then Bud posts those manufacturer specs for protection. Why no
specs? Bud cannot post what does not exist. No plug-in protector
claims to protect from the typically destructive type of surge. 600
requests for that spec. Bud refuses to post even one spec.

Because profit margins are so massive, even I would sell a plug-in
proteccxtor to anyone so naive as to believe Bud. High profits? Take
a $3 power strip, add some ten cent parts, and sell it for $25 or
$150. Massive profits for something that does not even claim
protection. Why does Bud keep posting so that he can have the last
post? Profit margins are at risk.

If Bud was honest, then he need not post insults. An honest Bud
would provide manufacturer’s numeric specs that claim protection from
each type of surge. No plug-in manufacturer - not one - will claim
such protection. Which type protector protects from all types of
surges? One properly earthed 'whole house' protector as even Bud's
citations demonstrate. Bud's citations show how plug-in protectors
can earth surges - 8000 volts destructively - through adjacent
appliances. Yes, a plug-in protector can even contribute to damage of
adjacent electronics. Page 42 Figure 8.

Other problems with grossly undersized plug-in protectors - 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
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
Scary pictures demonstrate another problem. No wonder Bud must resort
to mockery and insult.

Bud will keep posting until he has the last post. What will not be
in that last post? A manufacturer spec that claims protection. Bud
cannot provide a spec that does not exist. Bud will post insults
incessantly until he has the last post. Then you might forget what
provides surge protection - earth ground. Both IEEE and NIST
citations state that a protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Bud cannot provide even one plug-in spec that claims
effective protection. Just another reason why Bud must post
incessantly to have the last post.

On May 27, 11:37*am, bud-- wrote:
w_tom wrote:
On May 26, 1:51 am, bud-- wrote:
Why doesn’t w_ ever answer questions?
Why doesn’t w_ get treatment for his obsessive-compulsive disease?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

* Both the IEEE and NIST guides say a protector requires earth
ground.

Only in w_'w hallucinations.
Never answered by *w_:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide say plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?

snip

OK, lesson learned. No matter how well-intentioned, any question
regarding surge protection turns into a flame-fest on this NG.

nate

On May 27, 3:32 pm, N8N wrote:
OK, lesson learned. No matter how well-intentioned, any question
regarding surge protection turns into a flame-fest on this NG.

What flame war? One is posting myths and personal disparagement.
Another is posting responsible source after responsible source
followed by basic electrical concepts backed by 100 years of
experience and knowledge. Did you read these posts emotionally or do
you grasp the facts and numbers? If using technical facts, then every
Bud citations contradict his claims:
What these protective devices do is neither
suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert
it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Quoted directly from Bud's citation. It contradicts what Bud
claims. That quote also agrees with everything posted by w_tom. Bud
even refuses to post a manufacturer spec that supports his claims.
Why? No source supports what Bud posts. Even the protector
manufacturer does not claim what Bud posts. Bluntly obvious: even
Bud's citations contradict what Bud claims.

In every responsible source - including Bud's IEEE and NIST
citations - the protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A
protector that, by itself, somehow provides protection instead will
not even make that claim. 600 requests and Bud still cannot quote
even one manufacturer spec. No flame war. Bottom line facts. Even
the manufacturer will not claim what Bud posts. Why is this so
difficult? Every Bud citation says an effective protector must have
that short connection to single point earth ground. Why is this
difficult to understand? Where is your confusion?

On May 28, 12:46*am, w_tom wrote:
On May 27, 3:32 pm, N8N wrote:

OK, lesson learned. *No matter how well-intentioned, any question
regarding surge protection turns into a flame-fest on this NG.

* What flame war? *


That comment alone should be enough to show how out of touch you
are. You can't even recognize a flame war. And it always proceeds
and ends in the same way everytime this topic comes out. That is
with everyone else disagreeing with you. And with you accusing Bud,
me and everyone else who disagrees with you of being in the business
of selling plug-in surge protectors.

Bud has provided links to the IEEE that clearly show plug-ins being
used to protect equipment. People can decide who they want to
believe, you or the IEEE. Bud has even asked you dozens of times for
a single link that says plug-ins are totally ineffective.

BTW, I'm also waiting for an answer to my question. Electronics and
appliance manufacturers include MOVs for surge protection inside their
appliances. From time to time you have stated this up
yourself. Yet, you can't explain how it can be that these MOV's
can provide protection when inside the appliance where they have NO
DIRECT EARTH GROUND. So, how can it be that the lack of a direct
earth ground renders a plug-in useless, but the ones inside the
electronics, 4 ft away, are protected by the same components operating
under the same limitations? Faced with this, last time, you simply
denied that electronics/appliances have MOVs for protection, which of
course I refuted with references and links.




One is posting myths and personal disparagement.

Only if you beiieve the IEEE and NIST surge protection guides are
myths.



Another is posting responsible source after responsible source
followed by basic electrical concepts backed by 100 years of
experience and knowledge. *Did you read these posts emotionally or do
you grasp the facts and numbers? *If using technical facts, then every
Bud citations contradict his claims:

What these protective devices do is neither
suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert
it to ground, where it can do no harm.

* Quoted directly from Bud's citation. *It contradicts what Bud
claims. *That quote also agrees with everything posted by w_tom. * Bud
even refuses to post a manufacturer spec that supports his claims.
Why? *No source supports what Bud posts. Even the protector
manufacturer does not claim what Bud posts. *Bluntly obvious: even
Bud's citations contradict what Bud claims.

* In every responsible source - including Bud's IEEE and NIST
citations - the protector is only as effective as its earth ground. *A
protector that, by itself, somehow provides protection instead will
not even make that claim. *600 requests and Bud still cannot quote
even one manufacturer spec. *No flame war. *Bottom line facts. *Even
the manufacturer will not claim what Bud posts. *Why is this so
difficult? *Every Bud citation says an effective protector must have
that short connection to single point earth ground. *Why is this
difficult to understand? *Where is your confusion?

Nothing difficult to understand. As Bud stated, with you this is a
religious issue. Nothing anyone can show you will be good enough.
If surge protection guides from the IEEE and NIST that clearly show
and discuss plug-ins being used won't convince you, it's clear nothing
will

N8N wrote:

OK, lesson learned. No matter how well-intentioned, any question
regarding surge protection turns into a flame-fest on this NG.

Because w_ is evangelical in his belief in earthing, he uses
google-groups to search for "surge" to spread his religious tract. In
the last month he has appeared in 3 treads on this newsgroup because
someone mentioned "surge". He does the same to other newsgroups.

Maybe if everyone used a creative spelling of "sugre"....

--
bud--

On May 28, 11:41 am, wrote:
That comment alone should be enough to show how out of touch you
are. You can't even recognize a flame war.

I responded to myths with facts. I don't care how those facts and
numbers might make another emotional (angry). Their emotions are not
relevant . Emotions imply that a flammer has minimal technical
knowledge or is emotionally insecure. In Bud's case, profits are at
risk.

Posted are citation after citation followed by facts, numbers, and
quotes from professional after professional ... that all dispute Bud's
plug-in protector claims. Even Bud's own citations show how a plug-in
protector (without earthing) can even create appliance damage. Page
42 Figure 8 - 8000 volts earthed destructively through a TV because a
plug-in protector was too close to the appliance and too far from
earth ground. Bud IEEE citation defines damage encouraged by a plug-in
protector.

My replies ignored flamming by another (other than to note those
insults routinely exist). Posted was the science that has been
demonstrated for 100 years (even in US patents), proven by
professional papers over 70 years ago, and found in properly earthed
(whole house) protectors. A protector that costs about $1 per
protected appliance - tens of times less money compared to what Bud
promotes.

Let's see. If Bud was posting technical facts, then his citations
would not contradict him. If Bud was posting reality, then he could
quote a manufacturer spec for protection from each type of surge. He
refuses. No manufacturer claims that protection promoted by Bud. Is
that called flamming? No. That is replying to his insults with
technical facts.

What provides protection? Where is surge energy dissipated? Earth
ground. What does a plug-in protector not connect to? Earth ground.
What does every responsible source say is necessary for surge
protection?
... your surge protector will work by diverting surges to earth.
The best surge protector in the world can be useless if
grounding is not done properly.

That's another quote direct from a Bud citation. Is that
flamming ... or simply posting technical facts? Quoted from Bud's
citation ... that says why a plug-in protector does not protect from
the typically destructive type of surge.

Every responsible source notes the importance of earthing. The
effective 'whole house' protector come from responsible manufacturers
such as GE, Intermatic, Keison, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Siemens,
Polyphaser, Levition ... Not on that list are protectors that Bud
recommends such as Monster Cable. But again the reality stated
without flames: a protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Again - technical facts are provided and those myths
exposed.

On May 28, 9:41*pm, w_tom wrote:
On May 28, 11:41 am, wrote:

That comment alone should be enough to show how out of touch you
are. * You can't even recognize a flame war.

* *I responded to myths with facts. *I don't care how those facts and
numbers might make another emotional (angry). *Their emotions are not
relevant . *Emotions imply that a flammer has minimal technical
knowledge or is emotionally insecure. *In Bud's case, profits are at
risk.

Exactly on cue, everyone who disagrees with W_ is accused of selling
plug-in surge protectors.



* Posted are citation after citation followed by facts, numbers, and
quotes from professional after professional ... that all dispute Bud's
plug-in protector claims. *Even Bud's own citations show how a plug-in
protector (without earthing) can even create appliance damage. *Page
42 Figure 8 - 8000 volts earthed destructively through a TV because a
plug-in protector was too close to the appliance and too far from
earth ground. Bud IEEE citation defines damage encouraged by a plug-in
protector.

* My replies ignored flamming by another (other than to note those
insults routinely exist). *Posted was the science that has been
demonstrated for 100 years (even in US patents), proven by
professional papers over 70 years ago, and found in properly earthed
(whole house) protectors. *A protector that costs about $1 per
protected appliance - tens of times less money compared to what Bud
promotes.

* Let's see. *If Bud was posting technical facts, then his citations
would not contradict him. *If Bud was posting reality, then he could
quote a manufacturer spec for protection from each type of surge. *He
refuses. *No manufacturer claims that protection promoted by Bud. *Is
that called flamming? *No. *That is replying to his insults with
technical facts.

* What provides protection? *Where is surge energy dissipated? *Earth
ground. *What does a plug-in protector not connect to? *Earth ground.
What does every responsible source say is necessary for surge
protection?

* ... your surge protector will work by diverting surges to earth.
*The best surge protector in the world can be useless if
*grounding is not done properly.

* That's another quote direct from a Bud citation. Is that
flamming ... or simply posting technical facts? *Quoted from Bud's
citation ... that says why a plug-in protector does not protect from
the typically destructive type of surge.

* *Every responsible source notes the importance of earthing. The
effective 'whole house' protector come from responsible manufacturers
such as GE, Intermatic, Keison, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Siemens,
Polyphaser, Levition ... * Not on that list are protectors that Bud
recommends such as Monster Cable. *But again the reality stated
without flames: *a protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. * Again - technical facts are provided and those myths
exposed.


And to wrap it up, here we go again, W_ posts his list of "responsible
manufacturers", vs other manufacturers. Further proof as to his
religious beliefs and lack of logical reasoning. . I pointed out to
W_ many times that almost everyone one of those "responsible
manufacturers", also manufacturers plug-in, point-of-use surge
protectors as well.

PS: Don't bother with the usual lame response that the "responsible
manufacturers" only sell a product which is supposedly totally
ineffective and dangerous because they can make money doing it. The
logical contradiction in that would make Spock's head explode!

On May 29, 7:19 am, wrote:
And to wrap it up, here we go again, W_ posts his list of "responsible
manufacturers", vs other manufacturers. Further proof as to his
religious beliefs and lack of logical reasoning. . I pointed out to
W_ many times that almost everyone one of those "responsible
manufacturers", also manufacturers plug-in, point-of-use surge
protectors as well.

Actually you didn’t point that out. Bud does. So trader and Bud
are the same person. How curious. How many other aliases does Bud
have? How curious. Again no response with technical facts. Again,
defense of ineffective and obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors by
attacking the messenger.

Repeating the standard response to that same and silly accusation.
Even I will sell plug-in protectors to people so naive as to buy
them. When selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for $25
or $150, profits are massive. Anyone would sell those to the naive.
But only responsible manufacturers sell effective protectors -
protectors that have that dedicated earthing wire. Protectors that
do not even claim to provide protection are from APC, Belkin,
Tripplite, and Monster Cable.

Bud (trader) posts insults incessantly to deny engineering reality.
A protector is only as effective as it earth ground. Honesty is not
Bud. It now appears that Bud is also trader - with the same bitter
attitude.

On May 29, 9:43*am, w_tom wrote:
On May 29, 7:19 am, wrote:

And to wrap it up, here we go again, W_ posts his list of "responsible
manufacturers", vs other manufacturers. * Further proof as to his
religious beliefs and lack of logical reasoning. . * *I pointed out to
W_ many times that almost everyone one of those "responsible
manufacturers", also manufacturers plug-in, point-of-use surge
protectors as well.

* Actually you didn’t point that out. *Bud does. *So trader and Bud
are the same person. *How curious. *How many other aliases does Bud
have? *How curious. *


No, I am the one who pointed it out. Do a little googling and you
will find it from a couple weeks ago in another thread, where you
tried to draw a distinction between "responsible companies", who sell
whole house surge protectors and other companies who sell plug-in,
point-of-use, etc. With just a little bit of googling, I quickly
smashed that, by showing that all but one of the companies on your
list of "responsible companies", also sell plug-in type. Try using
Google and you can easily find that thread. Bud repeated it in this
thread, because it's one more glaring hole in your argument



Again no response with technical facts. *Again,
defense of ineffective and obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors by
attacking the messenger.

LOL? You're the guy running around claiming that Bud and I are
technically incompetent and have a vested interest in selling plug-in
protectors. You've also now claimed that we're the same person. As
for no technical facts, both the IEEE and NIST clearly show plug-in,
point-of-use protectors being used. We're still waiting for any
reference that says plug-ins are totally ineffective and dangerous, as
you have claimed.





* Repeating the standard response to that same and silly accusation.
Even I will sell plug-in protectors to people so naive as to buy
them. *When selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for $25
or $150, profits are massive. *Anyone would sell those to the naive.
But only responsible manufacturers sell effective protectors -
protectors that have that dedicated earthing wire. * Protectors that
do not even claim to provide protection are from APC, Belkin,
Tripplite, and Monster Cable.

* Bud (trader) posts insults incessantly to deny engineering reality.
A protector is only as effective as it earth ground. *Honesty is not
Bud. *It now appears that Bud is also trader - with the same bitter
attitude.

No insults, unless by insult you mean pointing out the glaring holes
in your arguments. You still can't see how totally illogical it is to
come up with a list of "responsible manufacturers", and then when it
turns out they also sell plug-ins, which you claim are ineffective and
dangerous, to say these "responsible manufacturers", only sell them to
make a buck.

PS: If you keep grouping everyone together that doesn't agree with
you, pretty soon that group will include everyone else but you in this
discussion, as well as the IEEE, NIST, etc. At least we are all in
good company