On Jul 14, 12:20*am, w_tom wrote:
On Jul 13, 2:00 pm, Caesar Romano wrote:

I have a Delta LA302R lightning arrestor
http://www.deltala.com/prod01.htm#LA302R
installed at my meter. How effective can I expect that to be?

* *LA302R is called a single phaseprotector. *That means it connects
one AC hot wire to earth. *The other phase would not have protection.
However it also uses the number 125/250 *and phrase 'per pole'
implying this is really a two phaseprotector.

did they teach you that at big mac school?

On Jul 15, 11:58*am, bud-- wrote:
The required religious mantra.

The IEEE guide explains, for anyone who can think, that plug-in
suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (power
and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. They do not work
primarily by earthing. The guide explains that earthing occurs elsewhere
in the system.

The guide also explains that if that energy is not earthed, then
energy will find earth destructively via household appliances. Plug-
in protectors without a properly earthed 'whole house' protector can
even contribute to damage of adjacent appliances.

But that knowledge would harm profits. Bud is a sales promoter for
plug-in protectors. Bud again posts insults to protect those profit
margins.

‘Clamping to nothing’, according to Bud, makes that surge energy
just magically disappear. Energy does not disappear. Surge current
must find earth ground. If not properly earthed at the service
entrance, then that surge current will find many paths to earth inside
the building. Page 42 Figure 8 - surge obtained earth ground 8000
volts destructively through a TV. Protector did nothing but make that
possible. Protector was too close to appliances AND did not have the
‘always necessary’ short connection to earth. Bud calls that 8000
volt damage “effective protection”.

If Bud was honest, then Bud would post manufacturer numeric specs
that claim protection. Bud refuses. Bud cannot post what even the
manufacturer will not claim. It does not have that short connection
to earth. It cannot clamp surges harmlessly into earth. It does not
even claim to provide that protection. It ‘clamps to nothing’. Bud
even ignores demands for those numeric specifications. Bud cannot
post was does not exist - effective protection. Profits are at risk.

Bud is a sales promoter. Obscene profits are at risk if consumers
got informed. Buy and earth one 'whole house' protector. Waste no
money on plug-in protectors. Have protection that is massively
superior to what $3000 of plug-in protectors might accomplish. Bud
would have you spend tens or 100 times more money for his product -
that does not even claim to provide that protection.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No earth
ground means no effective protection. From the IEEE Standards - only
place that IEEE makes recommendations in 'Static and Lightning
Protection Grounding':
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. 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 ...

Somehow by posting insults and providing no numeric specifications,
Bud proves 'clamping to nothing' works? IEEE says otherwise. But
popular myths are easily believed just like Saddam's WMDs. Which does
the lurker believe? The facts - such as where does that energy get
dissipated? Of half truth and insults from a plug-in protector sales
promoter?

Provides elsewhere in this discussion is an answer to the OP’s
question about what is and is not sufficient earthing. Earthing
provides protection which is why so many professionals discuss
earthing (not plug-in protectors) extensively. Earth is where the
surge gets dissipated harmlessly rather than inside household
appliances. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground
which is why all high reliability facilities put their protectors
close to earth ground and separated from better protected electronics.

Plug-in protectors do not make that energy magically disappear.
Effective protection earths before a surge can enter the building.
Protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Protection that
is 99+% effective. Where does the plug-in protector even claim that
protection? Nothing claimed. No earth ground means no effective
protection. Reality does not use insults as proof.

An honest Bud would have posted those manufacturer specs that claim
protection. He cannot post what does not exist.

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:58 am, bud-- wrote:
The required religious mantra.

The IEEE guide explains, for anyone who can think, that plug-in
suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (power
and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. They do not work
primarily by earthing. The guide explains that earthing occurs elsewhere
in the system.

Bud is a sales promoter for
plug-in protectors.
..
Complete bullcrap.
Lacking valid technical arguments poor w_ has to try to discredit anyone
who exposes his drivel.
..
Bud again posts insults to protect those profit
..
Poor w_ is insulted by reality.
..
If Bud was honest, then Bud would post manufacturer numeric specs
that claim protection. Bud refuses.
..
Posted often and ignored. For example a few months ago on this newsgroup:
http://tinyurl.com/6alnza
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No earth
ground means no effective protection.
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Ho-hum - read
the quote at the top.
..
From the IEEE Standards - only
place that IEEE makes recommendations in 'Static and Lightning
Protection Grounding':
..
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.

Poor w_’s religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that
conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in
suppressors are effective.
..
IEEE says otherwise.
..
Never explained:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
..
But
popular myths are easily believed just like Saddam's WMDs.
..
w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the corresponding complete lack
of sources that agree with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
..
Which does
the lurker believe?
..
I would believe the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors
are effective.

Then look at w_’s sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. Oops - there are none.

And never answers to embarrassing 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"?
– Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE guide example?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective?

--
bud--

On Jul 16, 1:26 pm, bud-- wrote:
Poor w_ is insulted by reality.
...
The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Ho-hum - read
the quote at the top.
....
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.

Poor w_’s religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that
conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

The IEEE says more than Bud's half truths. Amazing how a salesman
will say anything to promote a product.

One type of surge typically causes no damage. This surge made
irrelevant by protection inside all appliances (and by a 'whole house'
protector). A surge that creates, at most, hundreds of volts.
Industry standards even in 1970 required electronics to withstand even
600 volts without damage. Some will install a plug-in protector for
this surge anyway.

A typically destructive surge arrives on any or all incoming wires -
seeking earth ground. Shunt some wires together with a plug-in
protector. That thousands of volts are shunted (clamped) on more or
all wires and still seeking earth ground. Surge current on any one or
all wires still must find a conductive path to earth. 8000 volt
damage to an adjacent TV resulted. Same surge made irrelevant – does
not overwhelm protection inside all appliances - when using only
‘whole house’ protector.

Earthing where a typically destructive surge would enter a building
- the service entrance – means tens of thousand of amps gets
harmlessly earthed either by a direct wire connection (cable TV,
satellite dish, TV antenna), or via a 'whole house' protector
(telephone, AC electric). A surge not inside the building does not
overwhelm protection inside appliances - does not cause surge damage.

Every responsible source says surge energy must be dissipated
harmlessly in earth. Well proven principles for the past 100 years
define a single point earth ground and short connection to that
electrode. Every Bud's citation even says what an effective
protector does: divert (clamp, connect, shunt) surge energy to earth.
But Bud is a salesman. He must twist anything - quote out of context
- post insults - say anything to promote obscenely profitable plug-in
protectors.

Bud will say anything to avoid what even his NIST citation says:
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.

How does surge energy just disappear? Bud says 'clamping to
nothing' will somehow stop, absorb, or make imaginary what even three
miles of sky could not stop. Wow. Bud knows magic. Professional
papers say that is impossible.

What Bud also ignores. A 'whole house' protector is secondary
protection. Homeowners are encouraged to inspect their primary
protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
If Bud admitted that, then Bud must admit what provides surge
protection: earth ground.

Bud again refused to provide a manufacturer spec that claims
protection. Why? No plug-in protector claims such protection. None.
Bud refuses to provide protection specs because those specs just don't
exist. Just another fact that Bud forgot to mention while so busy
posting insults.

OP asked for information on earthing. Easy. Many industry
professionals who install effective surge protection were cited. Bud
could not quote them. Bud claims surge protection happens without
earthing - 'clamping to nothing'. Professionals define what makes
surges irrelevant and what makes protectors more effective. Install
and connect protectors to a single point earth ground. Learn
principles of earthing from numerous industry professionals in a reply
to Caesar Romano - the OP. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground; where surge energy must be dissipated. A fact that does
not require supporting insults.

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 16, 1:26 pm, bud-- wrote:
Poor w_ is insulted by reality.
...
The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Ho-hum - read
the quote at the top.
....
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.

Poor w_’s religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that
conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

The IEEE says more than Bud's half truths.
..
Never explained:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE guide example?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective?
..
Bud will say anything to avoid what even his NIST citation says:
..
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in supprssors?
"One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.
..
Bud again refused to provide a manufacturer spec that claims
protection.
..
Ho-hum. Provided and ignored, as usual.
..
A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Still never seen - a source that say plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. Poor w_ can’t even find anyone who agrees with him on the
internet.

Still never answered - embarrassing 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"?
– Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE guide example?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective?
– Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

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

--
bud--

On Jul 17, 6:35*am, wrote:
Bud is not a sales promoter for anything. He's doing a thankless job pointing
out to unsupecting casual readers here that you are a demented loon who spouts
endless falsehoods, and potentially dangerous advice that you can't
substantiate.

And your technical proof is where? Cited was professional after
professional. Numerous factilities where surge damage cannot and does
not happen were exampled. How factilities are corrected when surge
damage does happen demonstrated. Provided were pinciples used for 100
years to make surge damage - even direct lightning strike -
irrelevant.

Requested are numeric specs from any plug-in manufacturer that
claims protection from each type of surge. Oh. No plug-in protector
manufacturer claims such protection? So what does
post? Over the years, repeatedly posts insults. Yes, a
majority also believed Saddam had WMDs using logic.
Where does salty post any facts, citations, or personal design
experience? Some (ie salty) will blindly believe the first thing
said: Saddam has WMDs and the miracle of plug-in protectors.
.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Each layer of
protection is defined by the one always required component - earthing
electrode. Surge energy must be earthed before entering a building.
Plug-in protectors may even provide surges with destructive paths to
earth - Page 42 Figure 8. Facts posted without insults and that
contradict half truths from a sales promoter.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. How to
identify ineffective (and highly profitable) protectors? 1) No
dedicated earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about
earthng. No wonder cannot provide those numeric spec
numbers. Plug-in protectors don't claim protection AND do meet every
indicator of ineffective protection.

The OP asked for and obtained information on earthing. Numerous
surge protector professional were quoted. Why do professionals
discuss earthing extensively? Earth ground is where surge energy must
be harmlessly dissipated. was too busy insulting rather
than learn the science.

http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
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.

Just another professional who learned how to make surge damage
irrelevant and who must insult.

On Jul 17, 10:59*am, w_tom wrote:
On Jul 17, 6:35*am, wrote:

Bud is not a sales promoter for anything. He's doing a thankless job pointing
out to unsupecting casual readers here that you are a demented loon who spouts
endless falsehoods, and potentially dangerous advice that you can't
substantiate.

* And your technical proof is where?

The IEEE is good enough for everyone here but W_. They show plug-in
surge protectors being used. As for technical proof, where is W_'s
that says plug-in surger protectors offer no protection and actually
cause damage. But has asked for that about 20 times now, but W_
hasn't provided a single source that says plug-ins are useless and
destructive.

Aside from exchanging specific points which go nowhere, I think W_'s
whole approach to facts and how to choose facts to support his
arguments leaves one questioning his basic reasoning and judgement.
Case in point, W_ posts a list of many "responsible" surge protection
companies that offer whole house protectors, while disparaging other
companies that offer plug-ins as selling ineffective and damaging
products that don't work. The obvious point W_ is attempting to
make is that these responsible companies know about surge protection
and only make whole house type protectors. Yet I pointed out months
ago that every one of the companies on W_'s list of "responsible"
companies, except one, ALSO MAKES AND SELLS PLUG-IN surge
protectors. I even provided links to the plug-in products. Now,
with that attempt at separating "responsible" from supposedly
irresponsible companies selling fraudulent products so thoroughly
demolished, any reasonably logical person would never try to bring it
up again to support their position. But W_ continues to do it,
rattling of the same list of supposedly responsible companies,
ignoring the fact that they also make plug-ins. One can only question
the logic and reasoning processes used by such a person.





*Cited was professional after
professional. *Numerous factilities where surge damage cannot and does
not happen were exampled. *How factilities are corrected when surge
damage does happen demonstrated. Provided were pinciples used for 100
years to make surge damage - even direct lightning strike -
irrelevant.

* Requested are numeric specs from any plug-in manufacturer that
claims protection from each type of surge. *Oh. *No plug-in protector
manufacturer claims such protection? *So what does
post? *Over the years, repeatedly posts insults. Yes, a
majority also believed Saddam had WMDs using logic.
Where does salty post any facts, citations, or personal design
experience? *Some (ie salty) will blindly believe the first thing
said: Saddam has WMDs and the miracle of plug-in protectors.
.
* A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Each layer of
protection is defined by the one always required component - earthing
electrode. *Surge energy must be earthed before entering a building.
Plug-in protectors may even provide surges with destructive paths to
earth - Page 42 Figure 8. *Facts posted without insults and that
contradict half truths from a sales promoter.

* A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. * How to
identify ineffective (and highly profitable) protectors? *1) No
dedicated earthing wire. *2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about
earthng. *No wonder cannot provide those numeric spec
numbers. *Plug-in protectors don't claim protection AND do meet every
indicator of ineffective protection.

* The OP asked for and obtained information on earthing. *Numerous
surge protector professional were quoted. *Why do professionals
discuss earthing extensively? *Earth ground is where surge energy must
be harmlessly dissipated. was too busy insulting rather
than learn the science.

http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html





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.

* Just another professional who learned how to make surge damage
irrelevant and who must insult.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 17, 1:32 pm, wrote:
The IEEE is good enough for everyone here but W_. They show plug-in
surge protectors being used. As for technical proof, where is W_'s
that says plug-in surger protectors offer no protection and actually
cause damage.

We discovered two plug-in protectors earthing lightning
destructively into two powered off, networked computers. A hot
(black) wire surge that probably would have been made irrelevant by
the power supply, instead, was shunted around both supplies, into
motherboard, out network, and to earth ground destructively via a
third computer. But that is obvious. Any surge permitted inside
the building means surges can find destructive path to earth via
appliances. Other examples have also been observed.

Meanwhile Page 42 Figure 8 shows same. Surge energy was permitted
inside a building because only plug-in protectors were used. Plug-in
protector does not even claim to protect from a typically destructive
surge. Plug-in protectors did not stop, block, absorb or make the
surge disappear. 'Clamping to nothing' only permitted surge damage.
Instead, that surge energy was earthed 8000 volts destructively via
the adjacent TV. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective
protection that trader must ignore.

But again, trader misrepresents the facts. Nobody said "plug-in
surge protectors offer no protection". That is trader again reading
only what he wants to see – what he must read only to argue. Plug-in
protectors protect from surges that typically do no damage. Plug-in
protectors protect from surges made irrelevant by protection already
inside appliances AND made irrelevant by one 'whole house' protector.

Why spend $3000 in plug-in protectors (as Bud says is necessary)
when one 'whole house' protector provides the same protection – and
other protection? Obtain same protection for tens or 100 times less
money. Meanwhile a 'whole house' protector also protects from surges
that typically do cause damage.

Where is that spec for ANY plug-in protector that claims to protect
from a type of surge that typically causes damage? No such numeric
spec exists because no plug-in protector claims to protect from the
typically destructive surge.

How do we know? Every responsible source including IEEE Standards
(where IEEE makes recommendations) state what the effective protector
must do. Plug-in protectors do not do what effective protectors do.

Of course, trader is too emotional to read these facts. These facts
are posted for others who would learn science - who do not worship
what is promoted by retail salesman. From IEEE Std 141 (Red
Book)::
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.

From IEEE Emerald Book:
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 (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding':
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. 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 ...

Yes, IEEE says you can use plug-in protectors. But to protect from
surges that typically do damage. IEEE lists what is necessary to
provide that protection. Only 'whole house' protectors provide that
earthing. No plug-in protector meets those IEEE requirements. Yes
you can also install equipment to protect from gamma rays or nuclear
electromagnetic pulses. IEEE even says how that works. trader says
that provide gamma ray protection is also surge protection? That is
trader's reasoning. The IEEE says what protection systems must do for
effective surge protection. No plug-in protector does that. No plug-
in protector claims to do that.

Only protectors that earth surge energy harmless in earth: 'whole
house' protectors. Only protectors always used when surge damage is
not acceptable - 'whole house' protector.

What is always required when using plug-in protectors? A properly
earthed 'whole house' protector. What does what any plug-in protector
might do? A properly earthed 'whole house' protector. What makes all
plug-in protector functions redundant - wasted money? A 'whole house'
protector. What does Sun Microsystems, the IEEE, NIST, US Air Force,
QST (the ARRL), Dr Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times,
Schmidt Consulting, Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a
station engineer from WXIA-TV, engineers who eliminated damage to
Orange County FL emergency response facilities, every telephone
company, commercial broadcasters, nuclear hardened radio stations, etc
all require for surge protection? Plug-in protectors do not provide
sufficient protection. All require earthing and protectors that
shunt (connect, divert, clamp) to earth ground. In every case, plug-
in protectors do not provide that protection.

Meanwhile another highly regarded IEEE author notes the problem with
plug-in (point of connection) protectors. In his 1995 IEEE paper,
Martzloff stated as his very 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.

How many sources does trader ignore? Plug-in protectors can
contribute to electronics damage. Plug-in protectors do not even
claim to protect from typically destructive surges. Surges that a
plug-in protector does protect from are 1) typically not destructive,
2) made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances, and 3) made
irrelevant by one 'whole house' protector. Yes, even IEEE says you
can buy plug-in protectors. IEEE then shows why plug-in protectors do
not provide protection required by all consumers. IEEE even shows how
plug-in protectors can contribute to appliance damage.

Meanwhile, if plug-in protectors provide protection, then trader
posted numeric specifications provided by that manufacturer. Why do
no plug-in protectors list protection from each type of surge? No
provided by a plug-in protector is protection from surges that
typically are destructive. How many IEEE and other sources say this?
Thousands that trader must ignore.

One 'whole house' protector, without or without plug-in protectors,
is the 99% protection defined by IEEE. But effective protectors do
have the massive profit margin and are not recommended by the naive.
Trader - why do you recommend consumers waste tens or 100 times more
money on a solution that does not even claim to provide protection.
Oh. Trader - where are those plug-in protector specs that even claim
to provide effective protection? Oh. Trader knows that protection
must exist. Trader need not first learn engineering facts?

Just because IEEE recommends band pass filters for RFI also proves
that RFI filters provide surge protection? That also is trader's
reasoning. Plug-in protector that cost tens or 100 times more money
do not have and cannot provide what the IEEE requires for effective
protection – a low impedance connection to single point earth ground.

Naysayers instead want to hype what protects from irrelevant surges
and does not protect from destructive surges The OP asked what any
informed consumer would ask. How do we install, upgrade, or inspect
what provides surge protection - earth ground? How to obtain
effective earthing for protection was posted in reply to the OP -
Caesar Romano.

Effective surge protection means surge energy is not inside a
building - is instead dissipated harmlessly in earth. Where is the
plug-in protector that claims to do that? No – not one – plug-in
protectors makes such claims in its specifications. No earth ground
means no effective protection.

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:32 pm, wrote:
The IEEE is good enough for everyone here but W_. They show plug-in
surge protectors being used. As for technical proof, where is W_'s
that says plug-in surger protectors offer no protection and actually
cause damage.

Nobody said "plug-in
surge protectors offer no protection".
..
"No earth ground means no effective protection."
..
Why spend $3000 in plug-in protectors (as Bud says is necessary)
one 'whole house' protector provides the same protection
..
bud does not say that is what is necessary. (w_ is sooo dumb.)

And repeating:
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
[electronic equipment], 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."
..
Where is that spec for ANY plug-in protector that claims to protect
from a type of surge that typically causes damage?
..
Specs provided often and ignored - including in this thread.
..
From IEEE Emerald Book:
..
Poor w_. Religious fanaticism can be so debilitating. From the Emerald Book:
Multiport surge suppressor: "A surge-protective device used for
connecting equipment to external systems whereby all conductors
connected to the protected loads are routed, physically and
electrically, through a single enclosure with a shared reference point
between the input and output ports of each system."
..
Meanwhile another highly regarded IEEE author notes the problem with
plug-in (point of connection) protectors. In his 1995 IEEE paper,
Martzloff stated as his very first conclusion:
..
The village idiot always forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the
same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.
..
How many IEEE and other sources say this?
Thousands that trader must ignore.
..
How many IEEE and other sources say this?
Thousands that w_ must ignore.
..
No earth ground
means no effective protection.
..
And the required religious mantra.

But still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you w_??? I
am beginning to have doubts about what you have been saying.

And still never answered - embarrassing 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"?
– Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE guide example?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective?
– Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

Why can’t you answer simple questions w_???

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

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:


Requested are numeric specs from any plug-in manufacturer that
claims protection from each type of surge.

Please list the exact specifications you desire and an example of a protection
claim that would satisfy you.
Thanks,
Doug

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 12, 9:04Â*am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
I don't follow this example you keep giving. Â*Seems like your saying a
device adjacent to a protected device got damaged!?

IEEE example on Page 42 Figure 8 shows a protector too far from
earth ground. A surge was not earthed (energy diverted into earth)
before entering the building. So the surge arrived at a plug-in surge
protector. What do surge protectors do? Shunt (distribute, connect,
clamp) that energy on all other wires. Well, that surge still must
find earth ground. Since the wire back to the breaker box is maybe 50
feet long, then that surge voltage is so high as to find another path
to earth: 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV.

In an obvious example, lightning incoming on AC electric was shunted
to all other wires by two plug-in protectors. Surge on the black wire
was shunted to the green wire, into two adjacent, powered off
computers, out via NIC cards, into a third powered off computer, and
to earth via modem and telephone line. We literally located and
replaced every IC that conducted the surge to make all computers
functional. Surge not earthed at a service entrance (no 'whole house'
protector) means a surge is inside the building finding other paths to
earth. In this case, surge found earth ground via three powered off
computers because the plug-in protector connected an AC hot (black)
wire surge directly into computer motherboards.

If the computer was off then there should be no current path through it.
You mean it was in soft-off mode.

Furthermore, you gave your whole argument away when you introduced the phone
line path to ground. most likely that is where it entered. A phone line
does not provide a better path to ground than the house ground..


Sure the surge gets dumped from one wire (say black) into another wire in
the suppressor. However, the other device is also connected to the black
wire and it already has to deal with the surge with 0 protection. The
devices are already parallel. So I fail to see how this adds anything to
the other device being damaged.

Since we have 3 phase power, lets say the surge came in on 1 source wire.
Then the surge was attempted to be dumped into ground/neutral. Some of
that current can pass into adjacent device if ground/neutral cant sink all
the load. So we are back to the question of the quality of the main path
to ground vs. other paths. And the 3 phases should only mix in the fuse
panel or at 220 devices.


I think you misinterpreted the example. Probably it was talking about
surges entering on auxiliary lines like Cable and phone. I agree a
cable/phone surge suppressor is going to potentially introduce components
isolated from the phone/cable line to surges that came in on the
phone/cable line. Again, to the degree the ground can't sink the load.

I had several components in my house protected by these local devices. One
day lightning struck near by. I saw a flash behind my computer upstairs.
My wife saw one at the TV downstairs. Both had surge suppressors.
Everything still worked, but internet was down.

I checked later to see what happened. My cable modem was fried. My router
was also fried. After I checked further I noticed the cable company did
not ground the cable outside of my house. If it were today I would sue the
for both the equipment and the hazard since I have pre-paid legal...

The came out and properly grounded the cable.


CL

w_tom wrote:


A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Each layer of
protection is defined by the one always required component - earthing
electrode.

Every plug-in surge protector has at least one path to earth -- the neutral line
which is bonded to ground at the panel. You're right when you say a better
ground makes for better protection. You're flat wrong when you extend that to
imply plug in protectors are ineffective.

Surge energy must be earthed before entering a building.

Indeed it is better to keep surge energy out of a building. But "must" is way
too strong. Even a panel protector does not keep it out of the building if the
panel is inside.

Plug-in protectors may even provide surges with destructive paths to
earth - Page 42 Figure 8. Facts posted without insults and that
contradict half truths from a sales promoter.

As I'm sure you have read, the first line of body text after the diagram says
"Figure 8 shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors that does not
fully protect against lightning damage because of this effect."

So the article attributes the failure to user error, not a failure of the
protector.

-- Doug

On Jul 18, 2:59 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
Please list the exact specifications you desire and an example of a protection
claim that would satisfy you.

Cited are what is required by numerous industry standards,
publications and professional experience. For example, two 'top of
the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times entitled
"Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" define what
provides protection. Required is a low impedance connection to earth -
to shunt and dissipate surge energy harmlessly:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807830
The inductance of a wire is predominately related to its
length and weakly related to its diameter.

Why do plug-in protectors have all but no earth connection? Wire
impedance. Whereas a plug-in protector may be connected less than 0.2
ohm resistance to earth; it may be 120 ohms impedance. Even a trivial
100 amp surge would put something less than 12,000 volts between
protector and breaker box. AC electricity about wire resistance.
Surges are about wire impedance - which is why EE Times discusses
impedance - not resistance. An AC wall receptacle is only a safety
(or equipment) ground; not earth ground. It has low resistance and
excessively high impedance.

Why do industry professionals discuss wire impedance whereas plug-in
promoters do not? Well known for generations, every foot of wire
increases wire impedance adversely. Even sharp wire bends increase
wire impedance; compromise the earthing. How many sharp wire bends
from a wall receptacle safety ground to breaker box? 50? Wall
receptacle provides safety ground; not earth ground. An effective
protector requires that short connection to earth. Even wire splices
can unacceptably increase wire impedance - but not resistance.

User error. User has installed a protector that is too far from
earth ground (therefore all but no earthing) and too close to
appliances. Plug-in protectors without a properly earthed 'whole
house' protector means a protector may even earth surges 8000 volts
destructively through adjacent appliances. How do we eliminate this
failure? Properly earth one 'whole house' protector. Surge energy
must be kept out of the building.

Also necessary is the single point earth ground - what every
incoming utility wire in every cable must connect to:
Lightning is essentially a current impulse which is trying to return to earth.

Why was lightning striking Ben Franklin's church steeples? Even wood
and other household materials are electrical conductors. Just more
reasons why protection inside the building is complicated and
compromised; why surges must be earthed outside the building.

Practical application of the connection and electrode.

Low impedance demands a ground wire typically 'less than 10 feet
from each utility wire (in every cable) to earth ground. Some of my
best experiences involved a less than three foot connection to earth.
Sharp wire bends, passing through metallic sheets or conduits, and
splices will also compromise protection. So that wire does not induce
surges on other wires, grounding wire is routed separated from other
non-grounding wires (just another reason why Romex ground wire does
not provide effective earthing). All is accomplished (often trivial)
at the service entrance with proper planning.

How good must an earthing electrode be? Locations with average
lightning storms and conductive earth can be earthed by a 10 foot
ground rod. Others who want an even batter protector expands that
earthing electrode. Better conductivity and equipotential means
better protection. To you, that means installing a best single point
ground. Best solution in low conductive (ie sandy) soil for a high
lightning area is why massive earthing electrodes are installed - ie
Ufer or halo (perimeter) grounds. Better earthing means a more
effective protector:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm

What most determines protector effectiveness? Its earthing. When
surge damage results, ask where earthing is inferior or compromised;
as discussed on 14 Jul 2008 at:
http://tinyurl.com/6bc2jw

On Jul 18, 2:59 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
Please list the exact specifications you desire and an example of a protection
claim that would satisfy you.

In most cases, upgrading earthing to post 1990 National Electrical
Code provides a massive improvement - over 90% of what might be best
achieved. Earthing to a water pipe on the other side of the basement
is woefully insufficient; all but no earthing. To achieve maybe a
single digit percent improvement, massively expand an earthing
system. Another reason to enhance that earthing system is to correct
unexpected problems that might compromise the single point earth
ground (again, see that 14 Jul discussion).

Like a house foundation, earthing is the foundation of any
protection system. Any wire that might carry a surge into the
building must dump surge energy harmless into earth. If that
connection is via a protector, then we want a protector that will
earth direct lightning strikes without damage. Minimally sized 'whole
house' protectors for AC electric start at 1000 joules and 50,000
amps. Don't let those numbers also on plug-in protectors fool you. A
'whole house' protector uses all joules during protection. Plug-in
protectors do not.

Since an average surge is 20,000 amps and since that surge will also
be seeking other homes, then a 50,000 amp 'whole house' protector is
minimally sufficient. Joules is a ballpark measurement for protector
life expectancy. We expect a protector to last over ten years without
ever failing. Properly sized (effective) protectors only degrade.
Remain functional for 10+ years and do not fail catastrophically.
More joules exponentially increase a protector's life expectancy.

Whereas quality of and connection to earth ground determines a
protector's effectiveness during those critical microseconds; joules
determines whether the protector is functional for decades.

[Third of three posts]
On Jul 18, 2:59 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
Please list the exact specifications you desire and an example of a protection
claim that would satisfy you.

When one says, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".
Reality: a protector abandoned the computer. Computer saved itself
from a surge so trivial as to destroy the grossly undersized
protector.

Previously listed were more responsible manufacturers that offer
'whole house' protectors. The responsible list is long. Includes
just about every major electrical equipment supplier including
Leviton, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, Keison, GE, etc. Some
'whole house' protectors selected randomly:
http://www.deltala.com/prod01.htm#LA302R
http://www.smarthome.com/4860.html
http://www.keison.co.uk/furse/furse06.htm

In that 14 July discussion, every incoming wire must be integrated
into a secondary protection system. Even network wires between
buildings. Even TV and satellite dish antenna wires are earthed before
entering. The primary protection system also should be inspected.
First Energy customers, in particular, should give special attention
to their primary protection system.

Surge protection to make direct lightning strike irrelevant means
protection 'system' is sufficient for most every type of surge. Surge
damage is routinely made irrelevant for less money if not using plug-
in protectors. A direct lightning strike is the ultimate system
test. No damage should ever result - even to protectors. If damage
occurs, ask why that surge was not earthed; why it was permitted
inside a building.

[Third of three posts]
On Jul 18, 2:59 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
Please list the exact specifications you desire and an example of a protection
claim that would satisfy you.

When one says, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".
Reality: a protector abandoned the computer. Computer saved itself
from a surge so trivial as to destroy the grossly undersized
protector.

Previously listed were more responsible manufacturers that offer
'whole house' protectors. The responsible list is long. Includes
just about every major electrical equipment supplier including
Leviton, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, Keison, GE, etc. Some
'whole house' protectors selected randomly:
http://www.deltala.com/prod01.htm#LA302R
http://www.smarthome.com/4860.html
http://www.keison.co.uk/furse/furse06.htm

In that 14 July discussion, every incoming wire must be integrated
into a secondary protection system. Even network wires between
buildings. Even TV and satellite dish antenna wires are earthed before
entering. The primary protection system also should be inspected.
First Energy customers, in particular, should give special attention
to their primary protection system.

Surge protection to make direct lightning strike irrelevant means
protection 'system' is sufficient for most every type of surge. Surge
damage is routinely made irrelevant for less money if not using plug-
in protectors. A direct lightning strike is the ultimate system
test. No damage should ever result - even to protectors. If damage
occurs, ask why that surge was not earthed; why it was permitted
inside a building.

On Jul 18, 11:44*am, bud-- wrote:
w_tom wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:32 pm, wrote:
The IEEE is good enough for everyone here but W_. * They show plug-in
surge protectors being used. * *As for technical proof, where is W_'s
that says plug-in surger protectors offer no protection and actually
cause damage.

Nobody said "plug-in
surge protectors offer no protection".

.
"No earth ground means no effective protection."
. * Why spend $3000 in plug-in protectors (as Bud says is necessary)
one 'whole house' protector provides the same protection


Yeah, there you have it folks. Another classic. W_ rants on about
how plug-ins offer no protection, then proceeds to deny he ever said
that. W_ has not only made it quite clear that he believes they
offer no protection, but has done everything he can to try to make it
look like they burn houses down, complete with pics from 20 years ago.

LOL. See what I mean about his failure at any kind of logical
reasoning?

On Jul 18, 3:18*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
w_tom wrote:
*A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Each layer of
protection is defined by the one always required component - earthing
electrode. *

Every plug-in surge protector has at least one path to earth -- the neutral line
which is bonded to ground at the panel. *You're right when you say a better
ground makes for better protection. *You're flat wrong when you extend that to
imply plug in protectors are ineffective. *


Yes, seems everyone here agrees with that, except W_.




Surge energy must be earthed before entering a building.

Indeed it is better to keep surge energy out of a building. *But "must" is way
too strong. *Even a panel protector does not keep it out of the building if the
panel is inside. *

Also true.



Plug-in protectors may even provide surges with destructive paths to
earth - Page 42 Figure 8. *Facts posted without insults and that
contradict half truths from a sales promoter.

As I'm sure you have read, the first line of body text after the diagram says
"Figure 8 shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors that does not
fully protect against lightning damage because of this effect." *

So the article attributes the failure to user error, not a failure of the
protector.

-- Doug


Yes, and another W_ argument shot down by his own reference. Did you
catch the posts where he lists the "responsible" manufacturers who
make and sell whole house protectors and then disparages other
companies that make and sell plug-ins? I showed him links months ago
that showed that all but one of these same "responsible" manufacturers
also sell plug-ins. The remaining one on his list talks about using
them as part of effective protection. Yet, he continues to post
this list, trying to imply there is a difference between resonsible
companies and those that sell plug-ins. Totally bizarre.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:27:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote
Re "chain" surge suppressers?:

On Jul 18, 3:18*pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
w_tom wrote:
*A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Each layer of
protection is defined by the one always required component - earthing
electrode. *

Every plug-in surge protector has at least one path to earth -- the neutral line
which is bonded to ground at the panel. *You're right when you say a better
ground makes for better protection. *You're flat wrong when you extend that to
imply plug in protectors are ineffective. *


Yes, seems everyone here agrees with that, except W_.

I assume then that those plug-in surge protectors that have *more*
than one path to earth have both the neutral line and the ground
(green) line. Is that correct?

Thanks

On Jul 19, 10:50*am, w_tom wrote:
[Third of three posts]
On Jul 18, 2:59 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

Please list the exact specifications you desire and an example of a protection
claim that would satisfy you.

* When one says, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".
Reality: *a protector abandoned the computer. *Computer saved itself
from a surge so trivial as to destroy the grossly undersized
protector.

* Previously listed were more responsible manufacturers that offer
'whole house' protectors. *The responsible list is long. *Includes
just about every major electrical equipment supplier including
Leviton, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, Keison, GE, etc. *Some
'whole house' protectors selected randomly:
*http://www.deltala.com/prod01.htm#LA302R
*http://www.smarthome.com/4860.html
*http://www.keison.co.uk/furse/furse06.htm



It's quite amazing that W_ can't grasp that continuing to post this
list doesn't advance his argument against plug-in surge protectors.
It demolishes it, because every one of these "responsible" companies,
except one, ALSO SELL PLUG-IN/POINT OF USE SURGE PROTECTORS. I
think Keison is a new addition to the list. Let's look at what
Keison says about surge protection:

http://keison.co.uk/bowthorpe/docs/A...on%20Guide.pdf

Take a look at page 10, which clearly shows plug-in protectors being
used in an overall and complete protection example.


And then there is Siemens, the one company on that list that does not
sell plug-in surge protectors. Siemens makes a huge array of
electrical equipment, residential, commericial, transmission,
generation, communication, etc., so they should know a bit about surge
protection. Here is what Simens says:

http://www2.sea.siemens.com/Products...ge-Protection/

"Protection at the point of use
The second line of defense is the point of use. Here, homeowners can
reinforce point-of-entry protection by installing plug-in surge
protectors (strips) into grounded wall receptacles where sensitive
electronic equipment is located. These plug-in protectors, which
generally have much lower limiting voltages than entry protectors,
defend against externally and internally generated surges that travel
through power, phone, data, and coaxial lines. Plug-in power strips
should minimally include AC power protection and appropriate signal
line protection and should protect against both catastrophic and small
surges. These devices should be installed wherever expensive or
sensitive electronic equipment like computers, VCRs, fax machines, PCs
with modems, satellite systems, stereo systems, copiers and scanners
are located. All types of equipment with signal lines, such as phones,
cable TV, and satellites should be equipped with multi-port
protectors, which protect signal and AC lines."










* In that 14 July discussion, every incoming wire must be integrated
into a secondary protection system. Even network wires between
buildings. Even TV and satellite dish antenna wires are earthed before
entering. *The primary protection system also should be inspected.
First *Energy customers, in particular, should give special attention
to their primary protection system.

* Surge protection to make direct lightning strike irrelevant means
protection 'system' is sufficient for most every type of surge. Surge
damage is routinely made irrelevant for less money if not using plug-
in protectors. * A direct lightning strike is the ultimate system
test. *No damage should ever result - even to protectors.

This is another statement of religious belief that is easily dismissed
by anyone who has seen the effects of a direct lightning strike. To
expect that a properly installed typical whole house surge protector
means that a direct strike by a major bolt of lightning at the service
mast entrance is not going to cause any damage at all is just
ludicrous. There are plenty of photos around of what a direct
lightning strike can do, including vaporizing conductors bigger than
those used in home grounding systems.




*If damage
occurs, ask why that surge was not earthed; why it was permitted
inside a building.

And then attribute any damage that does occur to the use of a plug-in
surge protector somewhere in the house, right?

w_tom wrote:
[Third of three posts]
On Jul 18, 2:59 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

Please list the exact specifications you desire and an example of a protection
claim that would satisfy you.

When one says,

etc,etc,etc


Notice that w_ can't answer the question in 4 posts.

--
bud--

Caesar Romano wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:27:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote
Re "chain" surge suppressers?:

On Jul 18, 3:18 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
w_tom wrote:
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Each layer of
protection is defined by the one always required component - earthing
electrode.
Every plug-in surge protector has at least one path to earth -- the neutral line
which is bonded to ground at the panel. You're right when you say a better
ground makes for better protection. You're flat wrong when you extend that to
imply plug in protectors are ineffective.

Yes, seems everyone here agrees with that, except W_.

I assume then that those plug-in surge protectors that have *more*
than one path to earth have both the neutral line and the ground
(green) line. Is that correct?
..
Yes.

But plug-in suppressors do not primarily protect by earthing the surge.
They protect primarily by clamping (limiting) the voltage from all wires
to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage between all wires (power
and signal) going to protected equipment is safe for the protected
equipment. (Read the example in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.)

--
bud--

On Jul 20, 6:28 am, wrote:
It's quite amazing that W_ can't grasp that continuing to post this
list doesn't advance his argument against plug-in surge protectors.
It demolishes it, because every one of these "responsible" companies,
except one, ALSO SELL PLUG-IN/POINT OF USE SURGE PROTECTORS. I
think Keison is a new addition to the list.

Keison is but another of maybe 100 manufacturers that make effective
'whole house' protectors. With technical knowledge, trader would have
known the list of responsible manufacturers is long AND that Keison
has long been on that list.

Yes, a plug-in protector does protect from surges that typically
cause no damage - as w_tom has said repeatedly. Complete protection
means also installing protection from surges that don’t cause damage
or do not exist. Protection inside appliances makes some types of
surges redundant - irrelevant. A complete solution means we buy
everything - even protect from things that do not cause damage.

Complete protection also means lightning rods, massive line filters,
Early Streamer Emission devices, etc. Even telcos do not need or
install complete protection. They need effective protection – do not
enrich scammer such as ESE manufacturers. No responsible facility
would waste money on complete protection. How about a psychic? Also
necessary for ‘complete’ protection? High reliability facilities
don't waste money on plug-in protectors.

How curious. Only manufactures that provide devices for effective
solutions are also responsible electrical equipment manufacturers such
as GE, Intermatic, etc. That was the point that trader completely
ignored to post attacks and accusations. Companies such as APC,
Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable - companies that sell no
effective solutions - take a $3 power strip, some fancy paint, some
ten cents parts, and sell it for an obscene $25 or $150. Why not sell
'whole house' protectors? 'Whole house' protectors do not have
massive profit margins. What is promoted by trader and Bud? Profits
or protection?

If selling plug-in protection as effective (plug-in protector
promoters say a ‘whole house’ protector is not necessary), then where
does any plug-in protector even claim such protection? None. No plug-
in protector - Bud's only solution - does not even claim protection
from each type surge. trader also does not answer the #1 question.
He cannot answer what requires electrical knowledge.

If plug-in protectors were so effective, then why does lightning
cause protector failure and some computers are damaged while connected
to that protector? Effective solutions mean even the protector is not
destroyed during a direct lightning strike. High reliability
facilities don't use the 'complete' solution. Instead, they divert
surge energy to be harmlessly dissipated in earth - an effective
solution that also costs less money.

A protector (available from responsible companies) is only as
effective as its earth ground. Responsible companies sell ‘whole
house’ protectors. APC, Belkin, Tripplite, Monster Cable, et al only
sell the most obscenely profitable protectors that also do not even
claim to provide protection. However even I would sell trader the
ineffective protector. If he wants to remain so naïve as to enrich
me, then fine. But I would also do what any responsible company
does. I would sell ‘whole house’ protectors with the connection that
makes protection possible – earthing. Posted above are concepts that
provide a 99% effective solution. Those solutions only come from more
responsible companies.

Where does trader answer the OP's questions? Only a fool would
recommend protectors that do not even claim to provide that
protection. Well the complete protection includes $hundreds for plug-
in protectors to protect from a surge that almost never exists - and
no protection from the surge that typically does cause damage. trader
recommends protectors that do not even claim to provide protection.
trader ignores an effective product only sold by more responsible
manufacturers.

w_tom wrote:

Why do plug-in protectors have all but no earth connection? Wire
impedance. Whereas a plug-in protector may be connected less than 0.2
ohm resistance to earth; it may be 120 ohms impedance. Even a trivial
100 amp surge would put something less than 12,000 volts between
protector and breaker box. AC electricity about wire resistance.
Surges are about wire impedance - which is why EE Times discusses
impedance - not resistance. An AC wall receptacle is only a safety
(or equipment) ground; not earth ground. It has low resistance and
excessively high impedance.

Unless the surge originates at the outlet, wire impendence works in your favor
because inbound impendence is roughly the same as the outbound. Thus the surge
voltage and rise time will be limited before it reaches the outlet.

While we're at it, you've mentioned that all appliances have built in surge
protection that exceeds the effective protection of plug in protectors. Could
you please pick an appliance such as flat screen TV or computer and show us the
manufacturer's specifications for surge protection?

Thanks,
Doug

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 20, 6:28 am, wrote:
It's quite amazing that W_ can't grasp that continuing to post this
list doesn't advance his argument against plug-in surge protectors.
It demolishes it, because every one of these "responsible" companies,
except one, ALSO SELL PLUG-IN/POINT OF USE SURGE PROTECTORS.
think Keison is a new addition to the list.

How curious. Only manufactures that provide devices for effective
solutions are also responsible electrical equipment manufacturers such
as GE, Intermatic, etc.
..
How curious. As has been pointed out several times, all w_'s responsible
manufacturers make plug-in suppressors (except SquareD). They must not
be responsible at all.
SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
..
No plug-
in protector - Bud's only solution - does not even claim protection
from each type surge.
..
Poor w_. Repeating: "Service panel suppressors are a good idea."

Why does SquareD NOT claim protection from "each type of surge". [I have
not looked at other manufacturers.] It is bullcrap.


Still missing, of course, a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

And still never answered - embarrassing 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"?
– Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE guide example?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective?
– Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

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

--
bud--

On Jul 10, 4:21 pm, w_tom wrote:
What does your telco do to have better protection from about 100
surges during every thunderstorm? They don't use any plug-in
protectors adjacent to equipment. They put every 'whole house'protector where each wire enters the building, as close to earth
ground as is practicable, and protectors up to 50 meters distant from
electronics. Why 50 meters? Because separation increases protection.

"Power surges on telephone exchange equipment meanwhile, affected a
third of the Island. At 10.50 p.m. the surges resulted in a "main
power failure" at Bermuda Telephone Company (BTC's) Paget Telephone
Exchange, causing interruptions to 22,000 business and residential
lines from Smiths to Dockyard.

Last night, 2,000 customers in the West End were still without
service.

A BTC spokeswoman said: "The BTC staff will work very hard through the
night to get everyone back on line. There are approximately 2,500
customers in the Devonshire South and Smiths South areas, feeding
directly out of the Paget Exchange, who also continue to experience a
service interruption."

Guess they should have paid attention to the expert.

On Jul 19, 1:04 pm, Caesar Romano wrote:
I assume then that those plug-in surge protectors that have *more*
than one path to earth have both the neutral line and the ground
(green) line. Is that correct?

Impedance is why that wire is not a connection to earth. To claim
plug-in protectors are effective, others must ignore impedance or
(more often) have no idea what impedance is. Impedance is why a surge
protector on Page 42 Figure 8 does not divert surge current via white
(neutral) and green (safety ground) wires. If the plug-in protector
was earthed via those wires, then 8000 volts could not exist to
destroy the adjacent TV. But the surge instead imposed 8000 volts
destructively on an adjacent TV. How could these 8000 volts exist IF
protector was earthed by neutral and safety ground wires?

No such earthing existed. Wire impedance was excessive.

Provided were typical numbers for 50 feet of Romex. Whereas that
wire is well less than 0.2 ohms resistance, that same wire is maybe
120 ohms impedance. Even a trivial 100 amp surge would put wall
receptacle (and surge protector) at something like 12,000 volts. Bud
pretends wire impedance does not exist. And yet every professional
citation (including Bud's) requires low impedance (not low resistance)
earthing connections.

Earthing for surge protection must be short to earth ('less than 10
feet', no sharp bends, no splices, etc). A wall receptacle is not
called earth ground. It is called safety ground or equipment ground.
No accident. Wall receptacles are not earth grounds.

Why does Bud avoid discussing "What these protective devices do
is ... simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm." Because
no plug-in protector claims (in numeric specs) to achieve that
earthing and does not claim to protect from that type of surge. Bud
would have you assume all surges are same. Sales are at risk.

Front page article in Electrical Engineering Times entitled
"Protecting Electrical Devices From Lightning Transients" discusses
wire impedance because 50 foot of interior AC electric wiring is
woefully too long to provide earthing. Since the article is about
protecting electrical devices, then it does not discuss plug-in
protectors and it does discuss how to make earthing better. But then
EE Times is for engineers; not for a majority who know only what is
taught on retail store shelves. That propaganda is powerful stuff.

Assume a safety ground wire is earthing a surge. Since that wire is
bundled with other wires, then surges are induced on those other
wires. Now more surges on other wires - more surges inside the
building. Just another reason why plug-in protectors do not properly
earth the destructive surge AND why surges must be kept out of the
building. One requirement for effective surge protection: those
earthing wires must be separated from other non-grounding wires.

No technically accurate answer is determined from majority
conclusions. After all, Saddam had all those WMDs? The majority said
so by ignoring facts and numbers that engineers saw. It was also
obvious in those 2002 numbers that Saddam’s WMDs did not exist. So
what did the majority say?

Propaganda from retail store shelves is the source of most
recommendations. With obscene profit margins, a plug-in protector
gets promoted everywhere; 'whole house' protectors only sell on the
science. If you don't grasp this simple science, then spend tens or
100 times more money on plug-in protectors. Propaganda is that
effective. How does Monster Cable sell a $3 power strip with fancy
paint and ten cent protector parts for $150? Obscene profits make
propaganda easy.

A surge will travel to earth via that Romex wire and not induce
surges on all other wires? Of course not. Even sharp bends inside
every junction box means that wire does not provide effective
earthing. What is found only in responsible (professional)
citations? Even references to no sharp bends. Why? A sharp bends
only increase 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page
42 Figure 8. No earth ground means no effective protection. Why does
Polyphaser make a protector with no earth ground connection? For even
better protection (Polyphaser is an industry benchmark), that
protector makes a zero foot connection to earth. One who even
designed and built this stuff (who learned after direct lightning
strikes from surprising successes and by making these mistakes) is the
minority. Therefore he is wrong?

Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors? Why do all telcos
use ‘whole house’ protectors? Retail store salesmen or angry others
cannot answer that. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Demonstrated by numbers and citations is a wall receptacle
does not provide earthing. Those who promote plug-in protectors also
avoid all discussion about impedance – an engineering concept not
taught on retail store shelves. A concept so essential to protection
as to be discussed by engineers in a magazine only for electrical
engineers. An article entitled “Protecting Electrical Devices From
Lightning Transients" devotes a large part to impedance – and why that
wire connection to earth must be so short; no sharp bends, etc.

What does that article and most every professional source note?
That neutral and safety ground wire cannot earth surges. It will
easily conduct 60 Hz AC electricity. But surges have completely
different characteristics make wire impedance relevant. People such
as trader do not do this stuff. What did every professional citation
define? Resistance? Of course not. Trader is only discussing
resistance. It is what he understands. But every citation also talks
about wire *impedance* when discussing surges. An electrical concept
that is little taught in tech school but is well taught to engineers.

How much current can a lamp cord (18 AWG) conduct? That wire
typically rated for 10 amps may conduct approaching 60,000 amps of
surge current – can even conduct a majority of direct lightning
strikes without damage. A majority without engineering training would
not know this; may even deny it. Which one is an engineer and has
experience? A protector is only as effective as its earth ground -
which is why a plug-in protector has all but no earthing.

w_tom wrote:

Even a trivial 100 amp surge would put wall
receptacle (and surge protector) at something like 12,000 volts. Bud
pretends wire impedance does not exist.
..
w_ is fond of inventing opinions and attributing them to others.

w_ is going to have trouble getting 12,000V past a receptacle, which
will arc-over at 6.000V. After arc-over there will be hundreds of volts.
The same thing happens at service panels. But w_ is not encumbered by
reality.

The 6,000V arc–over at service panels combined with the impedance of
branch circuits greatly limits the current, and thus energy, that can
reach a plug-in suppressor.
..
Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors?
..
Geez, thats a tough one.
Umm, maybe because it is high amp direct wired.
And wouldn’t all 683,297 telephone circuits have to go through a
multiport suppressor?
And appropriateness of devices for different uses?
..
Trader is only discussing
resistance.
..
Nope. Poor w_ can’t figure out what trader said. Might be the religious
blinders.
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground
,
w_’s religious mantra will save him from confusing thoughts.

Such as from the IEEE guide - plug-in suppressors work primarily by
clamping, not earthing. The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere.


And surprise - still missing, a source that agrees with w_ that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And still never answered - embarrassing 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"?
– Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE guide example?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective?
– Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

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

--
bud--