Does anyone know if surge suppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?

For example, I have two power strips that have surge suppresser
outlets. If I plug one of the strips into the protected outlet of the
other suppresser will the down-stream strip offer more protection than
the up-stream one?

Thanks,

On Jul 7, 8:27*am, Caesar Romano wrote:
Does anyone know if surge suppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?

For example, I have two power strips that have surge suppresser
outlets. If I plug one of the strips into the protected outlet of the
other suppresser will the down-stream strip offer more protection than
the up-stream one?

Thanks,

Tripp Light told me it works that way. I use two in some areas. But
only unplugging in a storm is 100% guarnteed.

On Jul 7, 9:43�am, ransley wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:27�am, Caesar Romano wrote:

Does anyone know if surge suppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?

For example, I have two power strips that have surge suppresser
outlets. If I plug one of the strips into the protected outlet of the
other suppresser will the down-stream strip offer more protection than
the up-stream one?

Thanks,

Tripp Light told me it works that way. I use two in some areas. But
only unplugging in a storm is 100% guarnteed.

Buy a UPS, far better design and protection.

wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:43�am, ransley wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:27�am, Caesar Romano wrote:

Does anyone know if surge suppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?
For example, I have two power strips that have surge suppresser
outlets. If I plug one of the strips into the protected outlet of the
other suppresser will the down-stream strip offer more protection than
the up-stream one?
..
I would get a single suppressor with high ratings. They are readily
available at rather low cost.

The division of the protection between the suppressors depends on the
clamp voltage of the MOVs in the suppressors.

If chained, I would plug-in only to the most downstream suppressor.

Any manufacturer with a protected equipment warranty is likely to say
the warranty is void.

UL does not intend for any plug strips to be chained.

Everything that is interconnected needs to be plugged into the same
suppressor. External wires, like phone and cable, also need to go
through the suppressor.
..
Buy a UPS, far better design and protection.
..
UPSs, of the kind commonly used, do not intrinsically provide any surge
protection. The surge protection included in a plug-in suppressor is
commonly added.

Compare surge ratings.

And in the US get a UPS that includes UL1449 listing (surge
suppressors). Many (most?) UPSs don't.

--
bud--

wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:43?am, ransley wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:27?am, Caesar Romano wrote:

Does anyone know if surge suppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?
For example, I have two power strips that have surge suppresser
outlets. If I plug one of the strips into the protected outlet of
the other suppresser will the down-stream strip offer more
protection than the up-stream one?
.
I would get a single suppressor with high ratings. They are readily
available at rather low cost.

The division of the protection between the suppressors depends on the
clamp voltage of the MOVs in the suppressors.

If chained, I would plug-in only to the most downstream suppressor.

Actually, if you think about it, it really doesn't matter. All the
protection elements end up in parallel even though the plugins are in
"series". With one plugged into the other it won't make a bit of
difference. A "big" one and a "small" one will result in the small one
always being the guy to fail first anyway since it'll be the first to go
under fault cases.
So, a second one does add some protection, but not as much as one
would expect. Two identical units would not result in twice the juoles
of protection because one's components will always fire first and clamp
first, leaving the other one to sit there nice and cool. They won't
both clamp most of the time except under long, sustained faults and then
one will try to source it all, blow, and leave the other one to take its
place.
It's really better to have one larger, better designed unit than
multiple smaller ones. The conduction points, knees, and clamp
times/voltages are not very closely controled, especially in the cheap
units. All they're really there for are a few short duration spikes in
excess of about 600V, then once fired, try to pull that voltage down to
something lower until it burns itself out or the voltage goes away.

Do a Google for "how to's" & designs on surge supression; it's pretty
interesting stuff. I used to do safety testing on them for UL
certifications & componentry.



Any manufacturer with a protected equipment warranty is likely to say
the warranty is void.

UL does not intend for any plug strips to be chained.

Everything that is interconnected needs to be plugged into the same
suppressor. External wires, like phone and cable, also need to go
through the suppressor.
.
Buy a UPS, far better design and protection.
.
UPSs, of the kind commonly used, do not intrinsically provide any
surge protection. The surge protection included in a plug-in
suppressor is commonly added.

Right; they're good protectors on the regulated side, but not on the
unregulated outputs. The batteries, caps & xfrms provide a lot of surge
protection just by having to be there for the design. And yes, I'm
including switching supplies.

Cheers,


Compare surge ratings.

And in the US get a UPS that includes UL1449 listing (surge
suppressors). Many (most?) UPSs don't.

TWayne wrote:

I would get a single suppressor with high ratings. They are readily
available at rather low cost.

The division of the protection between the suppressors depends on the
clamp voltage of the MOVs in the suppressors.

If chained, I would plug-in only to the most downstream suppressor.

Actually, if you think about it, it really doesn't matter. All the
protection elements end up in parallel even though the plugins are in
"series".
..
The plug-ins are in "parallel".
..
With one plugged into the other it won't make a bit of
difference. A "big" one and a "small" one will result in the small one
always being the guy to fail first anyway since it'll be the first to go
under fault cases.
..
Depends on the actual clamp voltage of the MOVs in the 2 units. If the
"bigger" one has a lower clamp voltage it will take most of the hit and
may well fail first.
..
So, a second one does add some protection, but not as much as one
would expect. Two identical units would not result in twice the juoles
of protection because one's components will always fire first and clamp
first, leaving the other one to sit there nice and cool.
..
MOVs don’t work by "firing".

If they have the same nominal clamp voltage and a strong surge, one will
take more of the hit (unless the MOVs have been “matched”). The voltage
across that MOV goes up with the current through the MOV. That can allow
the parallel MOV to start conducting.
..
They won't
both clamp most of the time except under long, sustained faults and then
one will try to source it all, blow, and leave the other one to take its
place.
It's really better to have one larger, better designed unit than
multiple smaller ones. The conduction points, knees, and clamp
times/voltages are not very closely controled, especially in the cheap
units.
..
Anytime MOVs are paralleled in a suppressor by a competent manufacturer
they will be "matched".
..
All they're really there for are a few short duration spikes in
excess of about 600V, then once fired, try to pull that voltage down to
something lower until it burns itself out or the voltage goes away.
..
MOVs don’t fire. The current goes up rapidly as the voltage rises.
Below a characteristic voltage the current is negligible. They don’t
pull the voltage down. They try to prevent it from going up.
..
Buy a UPS, far better design and protection.
.
UPSs, of the kind commonly used, do not intrinsically provide any
surge protection. The surge protection included in a plug-in
suppressor is commonly added.

Right; they're good protectors on the regulated side, but not on the
unregulated outputs.
..
The type most commonly used are good protectors on the regulated side
only while in back-up mode. That is after an event.

In normal operation the "regulated side" is connected to the incoming
line and there is no intrinsic protection.

The batteries, caps & xfrms provide a lot of surge
protection just by having to be there for the design. And yes, I'm
including switching supplies.
..
Switch mode power supplies provide some surge protection on the line
side depending on how big the DC side caps are.

An insurance company, a power utility, Martzloff and others did a very
limited examination of equipment allegedly damaged by surges. A number
of computer power supplies had input side diodes burned out (surge
current to the caps). There were a few blown fuses. Some power supplies
worked after fuses/diodes were replaced.

--
bud--

TWayne wrote:

I would get a single suppressor with high ratings. They are readily
available at rather low cost.

The division of the protection between the suppressors depends on
the clamp voltage of the MOVs in the suppressors.

If chained, I would plug-in only to the most downstream suppressor.

Actually, if you think about it, it really doesn't matter. All the
protection elements end up in parallel even though the plugins are in
"series".
.
The plug-ins are in "parallel".

Same diff.

.
With one plugged into the other it won't make a bit of
difference. A "big" one and a "small" one will result in the small
one always being the guy to fail first anyway since it'll be the
first to go under fault cases.
.
Depends on the actual clamp voltage of the MOVs in the 2 units. If the
"bigger" one has a lower clamp voltage it will take most of the hit
and may well fail first.

Something's silly there; you don't get different specs on bars to vary
that widely. Nearly every power strip sold uses the same design levels,
which are very minimal anyway w/r to protecting equipment from more than
in-home surges and spikes.
There may be something to what you say, but it would be more accurate
to say that the one that reaches the clamp voltage first will be the
first one to be damaged. I actually shouldn't has said it WILL be the
cheapie, although odds are it almost always will be.

The "actual" clamp voltage etc. are never identical between components.
You're not likely to find different clamp voltages of much variation and
tolerances almost always negate them anyway. It isn't the clamp
voltage, it's the shape of the knee curve and how quickly one does or
doesn't get to the point where it begins to clamp. The clamp voltage is
not the voltage at which the component begins to conduct: It is the
voltage level the component tries to maintain after it has begin
conducting. It may take 600V to start the clamping action, and then if
current remains high enough it will try to clamp it down to 300V or
whatever the clamp voltage spec happens to be.

.
So, a second one does add some protection, but not as much as one
would expect. Two identical units would not result in twice the
juoles of protection because one's components will always fire first
and clamp first, leaving the other one to sit there nice and cool.
.
MOVs don’t work by "firing".

Call it what you want. To "fire" would be to move up the power knee
until the component begins to conduct, and then it will try to pull the
voltage down to its design clamp voltage whle the current remains within
its range of capabilities. I consider that firing. You can play with
syntax and semantics all you want, but it's a stupid point and makes me
wonder what your real point is.
Also, MOVs have fallen from favor for any but the cheapest power
strips anymore. That happened years ago when better components became
price competitive.


If they have the same nominal clamp voltage and a strong surge, one
will take more of the hit (unless the MOVs have been “matched”). The
voltage across that MOV goes up with the current through the MOV.
That can allow the parallel MOV to start conducting.
.
They won't
both clamp most of the time except under long, sustained faults and
then one will try to source it all, blow, and leave the other one to
take its place.
It's really better to have one larger, better designed unit than
multiple smaller ones. The conduction points, knees, and clamp
times/voltages are not very closely controled, especially in the
cheap units.
.
Anytime MOVs are paralleled in a suppressor by a competent
manufacturer they will be "matched".

No, they specifically will NOT be. They will have the same specs, but
they will not be matched within those specs to make th em nearly
identical to each other. There is no reason to. It would drive their
costs up very quickly. MOVs, which seem to be the only component you
understand, are much like fuses; you cannot test them reliably enough to
pick matched components.

.
All they're really there for are a few short duration spikes in
excess of about 600V, then once fired, try to pull that voltage down
to something lower until it burns itself out or the voltage goes
away.
.
MOVs don’t fire. The current goes up rapidly as the voltage rises.
Below a characteristic voltage the current is negligible. They don’t
pull the voltage down. They try to prevent it from going up.

There's your semantic lunacy again. Take a closer look; the clamp
voltage is NOT the voltage at which they begin to conduct current. Go
to any mfr and take a look at the specs and you'll even note "fire"
points on several of them. MOVs are NOT linear devices and it's far
from as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.

.
Buy a UPS, far better design and protection.
.
UPSs, of the kind commonly used, do not intrinsically provide any
surge protection. The surge protection included in a plug-in
suppressor is commonly added.

Right; they're good protectors on the regulated side, but not on the
unregulated outputs.
.
The type most commonly used are good protectors on the regulated side
only while in back-up mode. That is after an event.

Wrong. Don't be so lazy; go do some of your own research. And a UPS
only comes on after a power loss of greater than xx mS or brownout
conditions as measured by the UPS itself. You're mixed up apparently
between line conditioners and uninterruptable power supplies. You can
get line conditioning WITH a UPS, but you're going to pay for it. But
line conditioning has almost nothing to do with this subject.


In normal operation the "regulated side" is connected to the incoming
line and there is no intrinsic protection.

Well, sorry to tell you ths, but there is. The defunct unit at my feet
here contains exactly 9 surge/spike components, 3 inductors and a
fusible link used as a resistor. The one I am running off at this
moment carries several thousand joules of protection on the unregulated
outputs, but that's not the norm. The norm is approximately the same as
a decent power strip not from an Aisan country.

The batteries, caps & xfrms provide a lot of surge
protection just by having to be there for the design. And yes, I'm
including switching supplies.
.
Switch mode power supplies provide some surge protection on the line
side depending on how big the DC side caps are.

lol, really? The DC side caps, which is actually mostly accomplished by
the battery, are NOT the surge protection. The surge protection in that
area is actually very SMALL capacitors, often in the nanoFarad range,
and probably a couple of tiny inductors in most of them. Large DC
capacitors are INDUCTORS to high frequencies. Spikes will have very
fast wavefronts which will skip right across large caps.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that you are not educated but rather
have done some reading and made many mistakes in your comprehension of
what little you have read of you wouldn't be making the statments you're
making.


An insurance company, a power utility, Martzloff and others did a very
limited examination of equipment allegedly damaged by surges. A number
of computer power supplies had input side diodes burned out (surge
current to the caps). There were a few blown fuses. Some power
supplies worked after fuses/diodes were replaced.

And? Is there a point to that? I've routinely seen such components
replaced and the item put back into service. It's not necessarily a
good idea, because if something has blown spike protection components,
chances are extremely good that semiconductor materials, especially CMOS
input types of just plain CMOS, have had their input
diodes/capacitances/trace inductors blown too, meaning those components
are, assuming they are still working, primed and ready to blow at the
first hint of an extraneous voltage. They are there to protect the
CMOS, say, from normal PSU transients above the rails or below their
ground reference, so without them they often don't last much longer.

When you get more than a few buzzwords and some primer type reading
under your belt, we can talk again, but until then I don't think I have
much use for you or your so called knowledge. Suffice to say you are a
dangerous person around electronics gear. I'll bet you even think that
because you didn't see of feel an arc, you never transferred any static
electricity to what you touched either. I hope your'e young because you
have an awful lot to learn.

Caesar Romano wrote:

Does anyone know if surge suppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?

For example, I have two power strips that have surge suppresser
outlets. If I plug one of the strips into the protected outlet of the
other suppresser will the down-stream strip offer more protection than
the up-stream one?

Thanks,

It will give you more current sinking ability but it wont give you faster
response times. So you could take a longer charge, but not a faster one.
In essence, based on the way they rate these products, it will increase
protection. I don't know how useful it will be in practicality though.

On Jul 7, 9:27*am, Caesar Romano wrote:
Does anyone know ifsurgesuppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?

Yes it surge protectors work as less responsible companies would
imply. Since protectors stop or absorb surges, then more ‘damns’
should help.

Problem: protectors don't work that way. Same protection is also
achieved by plugging both each power strips directly into the same
duplex receptacle.

Protectors do not work by absorbing or blocking surge energy. Will
those silly little parts in a power strip stop what three miles of sky
could not? That is also what they imply. Why does your telco not use
plug-in protectors? Telcos need protection.

Protectors are not protection. Protectors work by connecting surge
energy to protection. Those power strips accomplish much more if
plugged into receptacles attached to the breaker box. Now the
protector is closer to earth ground and farther from protected
appliances. Yes, separation between protector and appliance increases
protection. But most important, the effective protector connects
surge energy very short into earth.

Tripplite does not sell 'whole house' protectors. No obscene profits
found in protectors that actually do effective protection. To install
an effective protector, see products from far more responsible
companies such as Square D, GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler Hammer,
Intermatic, Keison, Leviton, etc. Effective protector has a short (ie
'less than 10 feet') connection to earth. Why? Protection is what
absorbs all that surge energy. Protection is always about what
dissipated that surge energy. Protector is woefully too tiny. But
the protector can connect massive energy into earth. However it must
have that short connection to earth.

One who promotes for plug-in protectors (and will not admit it) will
post citations that show what protectors must do:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protector in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it ... What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert
it to ground, where it can do no harm. So a name that
makes sense would be "surge diverter" but it was not
picked

You somehow assumed protectors are blocking, stopping, or energy
absorbing devices. If true, then chaining protectors together would
make better protection. But protectors are 'diverting' devices. How
well do they divert? How far is that distance to earth?

Each protection layer is defined by what provides protection. This
post discussed secondary protection as defined by the breaker box
earth ground. Also inspect the primary protection layer:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Does your earthing meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical
Code requirements? That is where effective protection begins. Every
wire that enters the building (including telephone, cable, satellite
dish) must connect to that one earthing electrode before entering a
building. Did you know all telephones have a 'whole house' protector
provided for free? But again, the telco 'installed for free'
protector is only as effective as the quality of and connection to
earth ground. Earth ground defines protection. Effective protectors
connect 'less than 10 foot' to the earthing rod. Power strips may do
something effective if attached closer to earth ground. But then you
might buy a 'whole house' protector (from responsible companies) that
provide effective protection at tens or 100 times less money per
protected appliance.

One earthed ‘whole house’ protector does more protection than 100
chained plug-in protectors. That’s why your telco does not waste
money on them. That is why your telco is fanatic about earthing every
protector. That is why your telco can suffer maybe 100 surges to
their switching computer and no damage. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground – where that surge energy must be
dissipated.

TWayne wrote:
TWayne wrote:
I would get a single suppressor with high ratings. They are readily
available at rather low cost.

The division of the protection between the suppressors depends on
the clamp voltage of the MOVs in the suppressors.

If chained, I would plug-in only to the most downstream suppressor.
Actually, if you think about it, it really doesn't matter. All the
protection elements end up in parallel even though the plugins are in
"series".
.
The plug-ins are in "parallel".

Same diff.
..
Engineers everywhere will be glad to find out there is no difference.
..
With one plugged into the other it won't make a bit of
difference. A "big" one and a "small" one will result in the small
one always being the guy to fail first anyway since it'll be the
first to go under fault cases.
.
Depends on the actual clamp voltage of the MOVs in the 2 units. If the
"bigger" one has a lower clamp voltage it will take most of the hit
and may well fail first.

Something's silly there; you don't get different specs on bars to vary
that widely. Nearly every power strip sold uses the same design levels,
..
Stated unit clamp voltages are set by UL and are very gross steps - 330,
400, ... IIRC.

MOVs have more voltage levels. Characteristic voltages for a MOV depend
on action at a huge number of grain boundaries throughout the volume of
the device. Even MOVs with the same nominal characteristic voltage will
have different real world voltages because of the impossibility of
exactly matching manufacturing. Because of the very non-linear
characteristic of MOVs, small differences can result in large
differences in current at the same voltage.
..
which are very minimal anyway w/r to protecting equipment from more than
in-home surges and spikes.
..
Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily available.

Still missing - your response to another thread where investigations
from Martzloff indicate a very strong lightning strike to a utility pole
behind a house results in 34Joules or less to a plug-in suppressor.
..
There may be something to what you say, but it would be more accurate
to say that the one that reaches the clamp voltage first will be the
first one to be damaged. I actually shouldn't has said it WILL be the
cheapie, although odds are it almost always will be.

The "actual" clamp voltage etc. are never identical between components.
You're not likely to find different clamp voltages of much variation and
tolerances almost always negate them anyway. It isn't the clamp
voltage, it's the shape of the knee curve and how quickly one does or
doesn't get to the point where it begins to clamp. The clamp voltage is
not the voltage at which the component begins to conduct:

It is the
voltage level the component tries to maintain after it has begin
conducting. It may take 600V to start the clamping action, and then if
current remains high enough it will try to clamp it down to 300V or
whatever the clamp voltage spec happens to be.
..
You are describing a device that "fires". Neon lights, gas discharge
tubes, SCRs all "fire". Conduction starts after a trigger.

MOVs do not "fire". Conduction is on a continuous curve, increasing
rapidly as the voltage goes up. They do not "clamp down to 300V". Source
current will drag them up to 300V on a continuous curve.

[MOVs have a reaction time far faster than a surge.]
..
So, a second one does add some protection, but not as much as one
would expect. Two identical units would not result in twice the
juoles of protection because one's components will always fire first
and clamp first, leaving the other one to sit there nice and cool.
.
MOVs don’t work by "firing".

Call it what you want. To "fire" would be to move up the power knee
until the component begins to conduct, and then it will try to pull the
voltage down to its design clamp voltage whle the current remains within
its range of capabilities. I consider that firing. You can play with
syntax and semantics all you want, but it's a stupid point and makes me
wonder what your real point is.
..
The point is how MOVs work. You show no evidence of knowing, as in the
"take 600V" paragraph above.
..
Also, MOVs have fallen from favor for any but the cheapest power
strips anymore. That happened years ago when better components became
price competitive.
..
The IEEE published an excellent guide on surges and surge protection:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf

The IEEE says: "The vast majority (90%) of both hard-wired and plug-in
protectors use MOVs to perform the voltage-limiting function. In most AC
protectors, they are the only significant voltage limiters."

MOVs are very attractive, with high current ratings and high energy
dissipation ratings in a small package.

"Better components" are not specified.
..
If they have the same nominal clamp voltage and a strong surge, one
will take more of the hit (unless the MOVs have been “matched”). The
voltage across that MOV goes up with the current through the MOV.
That can allow the parallel MOV to start conducting.
.
They won't
both clamp most of the time except under long, sustained faults and
then one will try to source it all, blow, and leave the other one to
take its place.
It's really better to have one larger, better designed unit than
multiple smaller ones. The conduction points, knees, and clamp
times/voltages are not very closely controled, especially in the
cheap units.
.
Anytime MOVs are paralleled in a suppressor by a competent
manufacturer they will be "matched".

No, they specifically will NOT be. They will have the same specs, but
they will not be matched within those specs to make th em nearly
identical to each other. There is no reason to.
..
MOVs from the same manufacturing lot may be sufficiently similar. From
different lots they will not be. As I wrote above "because of the very
non-linear characteristic of MOVs, small differences can result in large
differences in current at the same voltage." Paralleling MOVs from
different lots will result in current not being shared equally which
will negate a significant part of the advantage of paralleling them.
..
It would drive their
costs up very quickly. MOVs, which seem to be the only component you
understand, are much like fuses; you cannot test them reliably enough to
pick matched components.
..
MOVs, which seem to be a device you do not understand, certainly can be
"matched".
..
All they're really there for are a few short duration spikes in
excess of about 600V, then once fired, try to pull that voltage down
to something lower until it burns itself out or the voltage goes
away.
.
MOVs don’t fire. The current goes up rapidly as the voltage rises.
Below a characteristic voltage the current is negligible. They don’t
pull the voltage down. They try to prevent it from going up.

There's your semantic lunacy again. Take a closer look; the clamp
voltage is NOT the voltage at which they begin to conduct current. Go
to any mfr and take a look at the specs and you'll even note "fire"
points on several of them. MOVs are NOT linear devices and it's far
from as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.
..
I said just above "the current goes up rapidly as the voltage rises".
That describes a non-linear device - a Varistior, as in moV.

"May take 600V to start the clamping action, and then if current
remains high enough it will try to clamp it down to 300V" does not
describe MOVs. MOVs have a smooth, though non-linear characteristic I-V
curve.
..
Buy a UPS, far better design and protection.
.
UPSs, of the kind commonly used, do not intrinsically provide any
surge protection. The surge protection included in a plug-in
suppressor is commonly added.
Right; they're good protectors on the regulated side, but not on the
unregulated outputs.
.
The type most commonly used are good protectors on the regulated side
only while in back-up mode. That is after an event.

Wrong. Don't be so lazy; go do some of your own research. And a UPS
only comes on after a power loss of greater than xx mS or brownout
conditions as measured by the UPS itself.
..
That is what I just said.
..
You're mixed up apparently
between line conditioners and uninterruptable power supplies. You can
get line conditioning WITH a UPS, but you're going to pay for it. But
line conditioning has almost nothing to do with this subject.
..
I agree. You shouldn’t have introduced line conditioning.
..
In normal operation the "regulated side" is connected to the incoming
line and there is no intrinsic protection.

Well, sorry to tell you ths, but there is. The defunct unit at my feet
here contains exactly 9 surge/spike components, 3 inductors and a
fusible link used as a resistor.
..
Well, sorry to tell you but the "9 surge/spike components" are not
"intrinsically" part of the UPS. The UPS worked fine without them. They
are added to the basic UPS to provide surge protection.
..
The one I am running off at this
moment carries several thousand joules of protection on the unregulated
outputs, but that's not the norm. The norm is approximately the same as
a decent power strip not from an Aisan country.
..
Surge protection can be added to anything. Surge protection is not
"intrinsically" a part of the type of UPS commonly in use. UPSs can
easily be made without the surge protection components. Surge protection
is function added to a basic UPS.
..
The batteries, caps & xfrms provide a lot of surge
protection just by having to be there for the design. And yes, I'm
including switching supplies.
.
Switch mode power supplies provide some surge protection on the line
side depending on how big the DC side caps are.

lol, really? The DC side caps, which is actually mostly accomplished by
the battery, are NOT the surge protection.
..
Switch mode power supplies, the subject of the sentence above, do not
have batteries.
..
The surge protection in that
area is actually very SMALL capacitors, often in the nanoFarad range,
and probably a couple of tiny inductors in most of them.
..
Manufacturers will be glad to know they can dump the MOVs and just use
nanoFarad caps and tiny inductors.
..
Large DC
capacitors are INDUCTORS to high frequencies. Spikes will have very
fast wavefronts which will skip right across large caps.
..
In the investigation below, the real world, burned out diodes were found
on the input/DC side of the switch mode power supplies. The diodes were
burned out by surge current to the filter caps, which acted as snubbers.
..

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that you are not educated but rather
have done some reading and made many mistakes in your comprehension of
what little you have read of you wouldn't be making the statments you're
making.
..
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that you are educated beyond your
intelligence.
..

An insurance company, a power utility, Martzloff and others did a very
limited examination of equipment allegedly damaged by surges. A number
of computer power supplies had input side diodes burned out (surge
current to the caps). There were a few blown fuses. Some power
supplies worked after fuses/diodes were replaced.

And? Is there a point to that?
..
Switch mode power supplies provide 'some' surge protection. Do you want
a direct reference from Martzloff?
..
When you get more than a few buzzwords and some primer type reading
under your belt, we can talk again
..
When you

- learn how MOVs work
- learn the difference between series and parallel
- learn that the type of UPS commonly used does not *intrinsically*
provide surge protection
- explain why it is illegal to sell a UPS without safety compliance
- explain where Martzloff was in error that a strong lightning
strike produces 34Joules or less to a plug-in suppressor

we can talk again.

--
bud--

On Jul 7, 9:27*am, Caesar Romano wrote:
Does anyone know if surge suppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?

For example, I have two power strips that have surge suppresser
outlets. If I plug one of the strips into the protected outlet of the
other suppresser will the down-stream strip offer more protection than
the up-stream one?

Thanks,

Not all surge protectors are created equal. One really good one is
worth more than a dozen cheap ones. Just get one really good one and
be happy. Generally the ones built into most UPS units are better
than most. If you are in an area where it is a big problem, then I
would suggest unplugging the devices. I would also suggest that you
might want lightening rods for your home. We don't see many of them
these days, but nothing has changed about lightening, they are still a
good idea in lightning prone areas.

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:27 am, Caesar Romano wrote:
Does anyone know ifsurgesuppresser protection can be increased by
"chaining" two or more together?

..
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
..
Protectors do not work by absorbing or blocking surge energy. Will
those silly little parts in a power strip stop what three miles of sky
could not? That is also what they imply.
..
Only w_ talks about absorbing, blocking and stopping.
..
But most important, the effective protector connects
surge energy very short into earth.
..
Apparently airplanes can’t have "effective protectors".

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

Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups
for "surge" to paste in his religious tract to convert the heathens.
This is at least the 5th time he has been to this newsgroup in the last
2 months.
..
To install
an effective protector, see products from far more responsible
companies such as Square D, GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler Hammer,
Intermatic, Keison, Leviton, etc.
..
As dpb has pointed out several times, all of these "responsible
companies" except SquareD make plug-in suppressors.

SquareD, for its "best" service panel suppressor, says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
..
One who promotes for plug-in protectors (and will not admit it) will
..
Poor w_ has to try to discredit anyone who exposes his drivel. To quote
w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged
technically, then attack the messenger." My only association with surge
protectors is I have some.
..
post citations that show what protectors must do:
..
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
..
You somehow assumed protectors are blocking, stopping, or energy
absorbing devices.
..
If w_ was not impaired by religious blinders he could read in the IEEE
guide that plug-in suppressors do not work by blocking, stopping or
absorbing.
..
One earthed ‘whole house’ protector does more protection than 100
chained plug-in protectors.
..
Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
What does the NIST guide say?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[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."


Never seen - a link to a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

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."

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

--
bud--

On Jul 9, 6:14*am, wrote:
* *Not all surge protectors are created equal. *One really good one is
worth more than a dozen cheap ones. *Just get one really good one and
be happy. *Generally the ones built into most UPS units are better
than most. *If you are in an area where it is a big problem, then I
would suggest unplugging the devices. *I would also suggest that you
might want lightening rods for your home. *We don't see many of them
these days, but nothing has changed about lightening, they are still a
good idea in lightning prone areas.


What defines the good one verses bad one? Price? Hardly. How to
identify an ineffective protection. 1) it has no dedicated earthing
wire (no wire means no lightning protection). 2) Manufacturer avoids
all discussion about earthing. No earth ground means no effective
protection. This is why the resonsible manufacturers (GE, Square D,
etc) sell the 'whole house' protector. Monster Cable does not.

One thing I don't agree with is the notion that the protection is poorer
because the protection device is further from ground. This works both
ways. The device being protected is also further from ground so its a less
attractive target if you will.


The protection is more influenced by the difference in the quality of ground
between the ground pin and the neutral pin the protector device is plugged
into. So being farther away from the house ground does not negatively
affect protection based on the way these devices operate.


CL

w_tom wrote:

No earth ground means no effective
protection.
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
The IEEE guide explains, for those who can read, that plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing. The IEEE guide
explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
..
This is why the resonsible manufacturers (GE, Square D,
etc) sell the 'whole house' protector.
..
The "responsible manufacturers" also sell plug-in suppressors.
..
Monster Cable does not.
..
w_ knows because he buys all his speaker wire from Monster Cable.


Never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

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."

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

--
bud--

On Jul 10, 8:58 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
One thing I don't agree with is the notion that the protection is poorer
because the protection device is further from ground. This works both
ways. The device being protected is also further from ground so its a less
attractive target if you will.

Again you are assuming the protector somehow absorbs or blocks
surges. They don't work that way. The typically destructive surge is
never blocked or absorbed by anything in the house. Surge voltage
will rise as high as necessary to obtain earth ground. No protector
will stop or absorb what three miles of the world’s best insulator
could not stop - air.

Any voltage differentially between two AC wires is not a typically
destructive surge. That surge is made irrelevant by protection inside
all appliances. A simplified example: you have assumed a surge as a
positive voltage on the black wire and a negative voltage on white.
But the destructive surge does not work that way. The destructive
surge is a positive on black, white, and green wire. Negative is in
earth. Voltage will increase as necessary to find earth ground.
Conductors through that computer include wall paint, concrete floors,
the telephone wire, linoleum tile, network cable, baseboard heater,
etc.

Another possibility is surge positive on black wire, nothing on
green or white wire, and negative surge voltage in earth. What does
an adjacent plug-in protector adjacent do? Now a positive surge is on
black, white, and green wires - and still seeking earth ground. That
is the point of Page 42 Figure 8 where the surge found earth ground
8000 volts destructively through the TV.

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.

That connection to earth ground must be as short as practicable.
Having said that, Polyphaser make a surge protector without an earth
ground wire. That protector mounts directly on earth ground to
provide even better protection. Polyphaser is a highly respected
industry benchmark.

If thinking a protector is protection, then a protector near to an
appliance is protection. Again, stop falling for 'Saddam WMD' type
reasoning. The protection is earth ground. The protector is nothing
more than a connecting device to protection. If any wire enters the
building and connects directly to appliances (ie black AC electric
wire), then a surge may find earth ground via that appliance.
However, if the surge is earthed before entering the building, then
the surge need not seek earth through any appliances. That's right.
Do you protect 100 devices with one properly earthed protector, or buy
100 plug-in protectors that cannot connect surges to earth?

Again, if the surge is not connected to earth, then wires, pipe,
floors, wood inside wall, etc all will give surges potentially
destructive paths to earth. You read that correctly. Why did
Franklin put lightning rods on church steeples? Those wooden steeples
were an electrical conductor to what surges seek - earth ground.

You are assuming surges are voltages. See that above simplified
example. I never said positive surge voltage. Surges are currents.
Voltage will increase as necessary so that the same current will
flow. Give that current a short path to earth and near zero voltage
results. Attempt to shunt (clamp, connect) all wires adjacent to the
appliance and that current will still seek earth ground -
unfortunately inside the house. Current of the typically destructive
surge must get to earth. Either it gets earth at the service entrance
(near zero volts) OR it gets earth 8000 volts destructively via the
adjacent TV (Page 42 Figure 8).

Why does Franklin's lightning rod work? Either surge is
electrically conducted by the wooden church steeple. Same current
with a high voltage means destructive power. Or surge is connected to
earth via metallic wire. Same current with trivial voltage means no
destructive power AND all surge energy gets dissipated in earth. Same
principle applies to surge protectors. Your surge protector must do
what that metallic wire did for Franklin.

Stop thinking of surges as voltages. Stop thinking of surges as
voltages between wires. Stop thinking that wires shunted (merged,
clamped, connected) together makes surge energy disappear. Do you
have protection? Then you can say where surge energy gets dissipated
(without currents inside the house). An effective surge protection
'system' makes a short connection to earth. Even sharp wire bends
will only subvert that connection to earth. Where does surge energy
get harmlessly dissipated? No plug-in protector will answer that.
Instead, they hope you *assume* wires shunted together means energy
magically disappears. That energy does not disappear and is not
absorbed by the protector.

As the NIST also says it:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protector in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
...
What these protective devices do is neither
suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to
ground, where it can do no harm.

An ineffective protector has no earth ground AND pretends that surge
energy just magically disappears. If connecting black, white, and
green wires together, does that surge energy disappear? No. It has
more wires to find earth ground destructively via adjacent
appliances. Your protection 'system' (and yes, protection is a
'system') must include something to dissipate surge energy. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No plug-in
protector even claims protection from the typically destructive
surge. Why? The answer is obvious. No effective earth ground.
Where is that surge energy dissipated? Adjust your definition of a
typically destructive surge that can overwhelm protection already
inside all electronics.

Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors? Too far from earth
ground. Too close to electronics. Both only subvert effective
protection. But these facts get ignored to hype obscenely profitable
plug-in protectors.

On Jul 10, 10:46*am, bud-- wrote:
Never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

Every Bud citation says why plug-in protectors are ineffective.
Each says the typically destructive surge must be earthed. Page 42
Figure 8 even shows how a protector too close to appliances and too
far from earth ground can earth a surge *8000 volts destructively*
through an adjacent TV. Bud calls that effective protection.

However if Bud’s sales promoted protectors were effective, then Bud
would provide manufacturer spec numbers that list each protection.
Bud refuses to provide the only relevant numbers. No plug-in
protector can claim to provide that protection. Every Bud citation
says why. From Bud’s NIST citation:
... your surge protector will work by diverting the surges
to ground. The best surge protector in the world can be
useless if grounding is not done properly.

Protectors promoted by Bud are defined by the NIST (see above quote)
as useless.

Nothing new here. Earthing protection has been a telco standard for
over 100 years. Responsible facilities don't use Bud's 'easiest'
solution. All put protectors as close as practicable to earth
ground. All create a single point earth ground; what provides the
surge protection. Reliable facilities don’t use effective protection;
not obscenely overprices products that Bud promotes.

Bud is not selling earth ground. Bud is promoting a $3 power strip
with some ten cent parts for obscene profits: $25 or $150. The $10
grocery store protector also is his protector circuit. Admitting this
would put profits at risk. Every Bud citation says why plug-in
protectors are ineffective. Quoted above is the standard Bud myth.
Bud still refuses to provide any manufacturer spec numbers. Honesty
is not Bud. Profits are at risk. Where is that manufacturer spec for
protection? Does not exist.

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:46 am, bud-- wrote:
Never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

Every Bud citation says why plug-in protectors are ineffective.
..
Ho hum - 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."

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.


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

--
bud--

On Jul 11, 8:50 am, bud-- wrote:
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Quoted from both Bud's citations are how plug-in protectors are
ineffective. Bud simply cut and pastes the same replies everywhere to
even deny what his own citations note.

If a plug-in protector provides that protection, then each type of
surge is listed in its numeric specs - with numbers that claim
protection. Why does Bud never post those numbers? Even the
manufacturer does not claim that protection. Not only do plug-in
protectors sometimes contribute to adjacent appliance damage. It does
not even claim to provide protection. Why does Bud repost myths
repeatedly? Bud is a sales promoter of plug-in protectors. He is so
dishonest as to not even admit this conflict of interest.

Install one 'whole house' protector from other responsible
companies. Eliminate surge threats to every appliance. Only more
responsible companies market 'whole house' protectors - Siemens,
Keison, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, GE, etc. Profit
margin on effective 'whole house' protectors is not obscene.
Therefore APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable do not provide the
effective 'whole house' protectors.

How to quickly identify ineffective protectors? 1) No dedicated
earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere.

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 10, 8:58 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
One thing I don't agree with is the notion that the protection is poorer
because the protection device is further from ground. This works both
ways. The device being protected is also further from ground so its a
less attractive target if you will.

Again you are assuming the protector somehow absorbs or blocks
surges. They don't work that way. The typically destructive surge is
never blocked or absorbed by anything in the house. Surge voltage
will rise as high as necessary to obtain earth ground. No protector
will stop or absorb what three miles of the worlds best insulator
could not stop - air.


No, I am not assuming that at all. Surge voltage will rise as high as
necessary to obtain earth ground. I (loosely) agree. As an electrical
engineer I could explain it better but why complicate things that are
already misunderstood.


Any voltage differentially between two AC wires is not a typically
destructive surge. That surge is made irrelevant by protection inside
all appliances. A simplified example: you have assumed a surge as a
positive voltage on the black wire and a negative voltage on white.
But the destructive surge does not work that way. The destructive
surge is a positive on black, white, and green wire. Negative is in
earth. Voltage will increase as necessary to find earth ground.
Conductors through that computer include wall paint, concrete floors,
the telephone wire, linoleum tile, network cable, baseboard heater,
etc.

That's incorrect. Equal voltage surge on all contacts is effectively 0
volts (with respect to the component in question) and will not hurt the
component outside of the effects of noise in the circuit. Voltage is the
difference in potential. If there is no difference in potential, there is
no voltage.

A surge is most certainly additional positive voltage on the black wire.
Anything else might be considered a potentially harmful event, but it would
not be called a "surge."


Another possibility is surge positive on black wire, nothing on
green or white wire, and negative surge voltage in earth. What does
an adjacent plug-in protector adjacent do? Now a positive surge is on
black, white, and green wires - and still seeking earth ground. That
is the point of Page 42 Figure 8 where the surge found earth ground
8000 volts destructively through the TV.


No such thing as a negative earth surge. Are you talking about reverse
polarity?


If you are trying to differentiate between a surge that seeks to return to
the power company and a surge that seeks to return simply to earth ground,
than I agree there is somewhat of a difference. But not much since the
power company's ground is tied to earth as well.



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.


This is not because the ground is "better" where it enters the house. This
is for different reasons. The phone company would not want to add several
protection devices throughout your house. Its easier for them to add just
one. In addition, if the phone line gets a direct hit by lightning, they
don't want it entering your home to seek ground. Thus, they are "grounded"
before they enter the home. Like all other metal of any kind.


That connection to earth ground must be as short as practicable.
Having said that, Polyphaser make a surge protector without an earth
ground wire. That protector mounts directly on earth ground to
provide even better protection. Polyphaser is a highly respected
industry benchmark.


If thinking a protector is protection, then a protector near to an
appliance is protection. Again, stop falling for 'Saddam WMD' type
reasoning. The protection is earth ground. The protector is nothing
more than a connecting device to protection. If any wire enters the
building and connects directly to appliances (ie black AC electric
wire), then a surge may find earth ground via that appliance.
However, if the surge is earthed before entering the building, then
the surge need not seek earth through any appliances. That's right.
Do you protect 100 devices with one properly earthed protector, or buy
100 plug-in protectors that cannot connect surges to earth?

Again, if the surge is not connected to earth, then wires, pipe,
floors, wood inside wall, etc all will give surges potentially
destructive paths to earth. You read that correctly. Why did
Franklin put lightning rods on church steeples? Those wooden steeples
were an electrical conductor to what surges seek - earth ground.

You are assuming surges are voltages. See that above simplified
example. I never said positive surge voltage. Surges are currents.
Voltage will increase as necessary so that the same current will
flow. Give that current a short path to earth and near zero voltage
results. Attempt to shunt (clamp, connect) all wires adjacent to the
appliance and that current will still seek earth ground -
unfortunately inside the house. Current of the typically destructive
surge must get to earth. Either it gets earth at the service entrance
(near zero volts) OR it gets earth 8000 volts destructively via the
adjacent TV (Page 42 Figure 8).

Why does Franklin's lightning rod work? Either surge is
electrically conducted by the wooden church steeple. Same current
with a high voltage means destructive power. Or surge is connected to
earth via metallic wire. Same current with trivial voltage means no
destructive power AND all surge energy gets dissipated in earth. Same
principle applies to surge protectors. Your surge protector must do
what that metallic wire did for Franklin.

Stop thinking of surges as voltages. Stop thinking of surges as
voltages between wires. Stop thinking that wires shunted (merged,
clamped, connected) together makes surge energy disappear. Do you
have protection? Then you can say where surge energy gets dissipated
(without currents inside the house). An effective surge protection
'system' makes a short connection to earth. Even sharp wire bends
will only subvert that connection to earth. Where does surge energy
get harmlessly dissipated? No plug-in protector will answer that.
Instead, they hope you *assume* wires shunted together means energy
magically disappears. That energy does not disappear and is not
absorbed by the protector.

As the NIST also says it:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protector in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
...
What these protective devices do is neither
suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to
ground, where it can do no harm.

An ineffective protector has no earth ground AND pretends that surge
energy just magically disappears. If connecting black, white, and
green wires together, does that surge energy disappear? No. It has
more wires to find earth ground destructively via adjacent
appliances. Your protection 'system' (and yes, protection is a
'system') must include something to dissipate surge energy. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No plug-in
protector even claims protection from the typically destructive
surge. Why? The answer is obvious. No effective earth ground.
Where is that surge energy dissipated? Adjust your definition of a
typically destructive surge that can overwhelm protection already
inside all electronics.

Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors? Too far from earth
ground. Too close to electronics. Both only subvert effective
protection. But these facts get ignored to hype obscenely profitable
plug-in protectors.




Dude, you have a misunderstanding of the fundamentals. You must have
cut-pasted this because its too long of a rant for you to have just come up
with it. Anyway its based on flawed understanding.

Current takes the path of lease resistance. I think you know this much.
What makes a protection device work is that it can provide a path of lower
resistance than the device it is trying to protect. That is all. The
protection is directly proportional to the difference in resistance of the
path to ground through the protected device vs. the path to ground the
protection device can offer a surge. The key here is "difference" in
resistance.


A quality device by a reputable company will not protect better because its
installed by your fuse panel as opposed to by your computer. If that were
the case then there would be one big surge suppressor installed at the
power company.

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 11, 8:50 am, bud-- wrote:
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Quoted from both Bud's citations are how plug-in protectors are
ineffective. Bud simply cut and pastes the same replies everywhere to
even deny what his own citations note.

If a plug-in protector provides that protection, then each type of
surge is listed in its numeric specs - with numbers that claim
protection. Why does Bud never post those numbers? Even the
manufacturer does not claim that protection. Not only do plug-in
protectors sometimes contribute to adjacent appliance damage. It does
not even claim to provide protection. Why does Bud repost myths
repeatedly? Bud is a sales promoter of plug-in protectors. He is so
dishonest as to not even admit this conflict of interest.

Its not a protector its a suppressor. Probably for legal reasons since they
will not protect from a direct power line or house strike. Neither will
whole house models.


Install one 'whole house' protector from other responsible
companies. Eliminate surge threats to every appliance. Only more
responsible companies market 'whole house' protectors - Siemens,
Keison, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, GE, etc. Profit
margin on effective 'whole house' protectors is not obscene.
Therefore APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable do not provide the
effective 'whole house' protectors.


Obviously because "whole house" suppressors need to be installed by
electricians and cost substantially more at first glance. Plug in
suppressors are baked into devices that surge other purposes like adding
ore outlets. They are bought "over the counter." These are two different
markets.


How to quickly identify ineffective protectors? 1) No dedicated
earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere.


A protector is only as effective as the earth ground it can provide vs. the
ground provided through the device it is protecting. Please recognize the
other 1/2 of that equation.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:35:14 -0400, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert"
wrote:

[snip]


Current takes the path of lease resistance.

A common error. Current takes ALL possible paths. Relative resistance
affects how it's divided.

[snip]

Gary H wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:35:14 -0400, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert"
wrote:

[snip]


Current takes the path of lease resistance.

A common error. Current takes ALL possible paths. Relative resistance
affects how it's divided.

[snip]

Yes, I did misspeak. I am used to saying it that way. In fact its this
relative resistance division that makes local protectors just as good as
remote ones.

The only thing worth mentioning is that the device protects everything
downstream of it. So a fuse panel protector will protect a lot more
devices. But it still wont protect the better.


CL

On Jul 11, 10:35 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
This is not because the ground is "better" where it enters the house. This
is for different reasons. The phone company would not want to add several
protection devices throughout your house. Its easier for them to add just
one. In addition, if the phone line gets a direct hit by lightning, they
don't want it entering your home to seek ground. Thus, they are "grounded"
before they enter the home. Like all other metal of any kind.

Apparently you missed an important point. An example. How must
resistance in that 50 foot of Romex from wall receptacle to breaker
box?. Less than 0.2 ohms resistance. Therefore a 100 amp surge (60
Hertz) would result in less than 20 volts difference between breaker
box and receptacle. However wire impedance - not resistance - is the
dominate factor during surges. That same romex wire is maybe 120 ohms
impedance. A tiny 100 amp surge would put that receptacle at
something less than 12,000 volts. What will that 100 amp current do?
At 12,000 volts, its will find other (destructive) paths to earth.
Same point is in a Bud citation - Page 42 Figure 8. Adjacent TV
earths 8000 volts destructively because a plug-in protector has no
safe place to earth surge current.

Putting the 'whole house' protector adjacent to a ground rod does
not improve the electrode. Putting a protector 'less than 10 feet'
from a ground rod causes massive impedance reduction. Why? Wire
resistance is irrelevant. Wire impedance makes or breaks surge
protection. A protector is only as effective as its earthing
electrode and its connection to that electrode. See, for example, the
legendary applications notes from an industry benchmark - Polyphaser.
What do Polyphaser discuss most? Not their protectors. Polyphasers
legendary app notes discuss earthing and connections to that earth
ground.. Earthing - not the protector - defines protection. Wire
impedance is why that connection to earth must be short - why telcos
also put protectors at the service entrance:.
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

Polyphaser even makes a protector with no earth ground connection.
Why? Impedance so critical that a Polyphaser protector mounts direct
ON earth ground - zero foot connection.

Wire impedance is why telcos install protectors at the service
entrance. Why do telcos not install protectors inside the building?
Not because it is easier. Any protector that would work inside a
building is already inside telephone equipment. But the typically
destructive surge must be earthed by a low impedance earthing
connection before entering the building. Every properly installed
protection (without or without a protector) is wired to make that
short (low impedance) connection to a common earthing electrode. Low
impedance is not relevant to 60 hertz electricity. Wire resistance is
irrelevant to surge protection. Low impedance is essential to surge
protection.

Why do responsible manufacturers provide a 'whole house' protector?
Because a plug-in protector does not protect from typically
destructive surges. Every responsible source states that earthing is
essential to surge protection. For example, "Planning guide for Sun
Server room"
Section 6.4.7 Lightning Protection
Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can be diverted.
The plans for the data center should be thoroughly reviewed
to identify any paths for surge entry into the data center. Surge
arrestors ... should divert the power of the surge by providing a
path to ground for the surge energy.

ARRL's QST Magazine in July 2002:
The purpose of the ground connection is to take the energy
arriving on the antenna feed line cables and control lines (and
to a lesser extent on the power and telephone lines) and give it
a path back to the earth, our energy sink. The impedance of
the ground connection should be low so the energy prefers this
path and is dispersed harmlessly. To achieve a low impedance
the ground connection needs to be short (distance), straight,
and wide.

"The impedance of the ground connection ..." is not resistance.
Impedance is why a plug-in protector cannot earth a typically
destructive surge; why telcos routinely put protectors farther from
electronics and as close to earth ground as is practicable.

How does a plug-in protector resolve this low impedance earthing
requirement? Manufacturer pretends no such requirement exists.
Manufacture pretends that surge energy will somehow magically
disappear if wires are shunted together. Manufacturer makes no
protection claims in specifications. The type of surge that typically
causes damage not only needs a low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot')
connection to earth. It also needs the only necessary 'system'
component that absorbs surge energy - earth ground.

http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to
ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning
protection device grounds the incoming signal connection
point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting
the threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance
(impedance) to ground where it is absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of
switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow
dissipation of the surge energy.

How many professionals do you need? This EE was doing this stuff
decades ago – maybe longer than you existed. How many of your
protector designs have been tested by direct lightning strikes? How
many failed before you finally learned what provides effective
protection? He who learned the theory and gained decades of
experience says one ‘whole house’ protector provides a massively
better protection system for tens or 100 times less money.

On Jul 11, 10:44 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
A protector is only as effective as the earth ground it can provide vs. the
ground provided through the device it is protecting. Please recognize the
other 1/2 of that equation.

Again, discuss wire impedance. Why do telcos routinely install
protectors so close to earth ground and up to 50 meters distant from
their computers? Because separation between protector and electronics
increases protection. Impedance in that 50 meter separation means
even more surge will not seek earth ground via electronics and will
seek earth ground via the lowest impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot')
earthing connection.

Protection is subverted when a protector is mislocated adjacent to
appliances. A protector too far from earth ground and too close to
appliances is why an adjacent TV, 8000 volts destructively, earthed a
surge on Page 42 Figure 8. TV damaged because the protector was too
close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

w_tom wrote:


Apparently you missed an important point. An example. How must
resistance in that 50 foot of Romex from wall receptacle to breaker
box?. Less than 0.2 ohms resistance. Therefore a 100 amp surge (60
Hertz) would result in less than 20 volts difference between breaker
box and receptacle. However wire impedance - not resistance - is the
dominate factor during surges. That same romex wire is maybe 120 ohms
impedance. A tiny 100 amp surge would put that receptacle at
something less than 12,000 volts. What will that 100 amp current do?
At 12,000 volts, its will find other (destructive) paths to earth.
Same point is in a Bud citation - Page 42 Figure 8. Adjacent TV
earths 8000 volts destructively because a plug-in protector has no
safe place to earth surge current.

I Don't agree.



Putting the 'whole house' protector adjacent to a ground rod does
not improve the electrode. Putting a protector 'less than 10 feet'
from a ground rod causes massive impedance reduction. Why? Wire
resistance is irrelevant. Wire impedance makes or breaks surge
protection. A protector is only as effective as its earthing
electrode and its connection to that electrode. See, for example, the
legendary applications notes from an industry benchmark - Polyphaser.
What do Polyphaser discuss most? Not their protectors. Polyphasers
legendary app notes discuss earthing and connections to that earth
ground.. Earthing - not the protector - defines protection. Wire
impedance is why that connection to earth must be short - why telcos
also put protectors at the service entrance:.
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx


I don't agree.


Polyphaser even makes a protector with no earth ground connection.
Why? Impedance so critical that a Polyphaser protector mounts direct
ON earth ground - zero foot connection.


Wire impedance is why telcos install protectors at the service
entrance. Why do telcos not install protectors inside the building?
Not because it is easier. Any protector that would work inside a
building is already inside telephone equipment. But the typically
destructive surge must be earthed by a low impedance earthing
connection before entering the building. Every properly installed
protection (without or without a protector) is wired to make that
short (low impedance) connection to a common earthing electrode. Low
impedance is not relevant to 60 hertz electricity. Wire resistance is
irrelevant to surge protection. Low impedance is essential to surge
protection.

I already answered this. One protector is a lot cheaper than 4 scattered
throughout the house.




Why do responsible manufacturers provide a 'whole house' protector?
Because a plug-in protector does not protect from typically
destructive surges. Every responsible source states that earthing is
essential to surge protection. For example, "Planning guide for Sun
Server room"

"Earthing" would be critical to a lightning surge. A power plant surge is
not returning to earth, its returning to the plant. The return path is the
critical key. Is that path through your device, or through the ground.
And how do you get the surge to prefer the ground over the ordinary path.

Section 6.4.7 Lightning Protection
Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can be diverted.
The plans for the data center should be thoroughly reviewed
to identify any paths for surge entry into the data center. Surge
arrestors ... should divert the power of the surge by providing a
path to ground for the surge energy.

ARRL's QST Magazine in July 2002:
The purpose of the ground connection is to take the energy
arriving on the antenna feed line cables and control lines (and
to a lesser extent on the power and telephone lines) and give it
a path back to the earth, our energy sink. The impedance of
the ground connection should be low so the energy prefers this
path and is dispersed harmlessly. To achieve a low impedance
the ground connection needs to be short (distance), straight,
and wide.


Earth does not sink energy that it does not create. Earth ground is only
relevant for lightning surges.


"The impedance of the ground connection ..." is not resistance.
Impedance is why a plug-in protector cannot earth a typically
destructive surge; why telcos routinely put protectors farther from
electronics and as close to earth ground as is practicable.

How does a plug-in protector resolve this low impedance earthing
requirement? Manufacturer pretends no such requirement exists.
Manufacture pretends that surge energy will somehow magically
disappear if wires are shunted together. Manufacturer makes no
protection claims in specifications. The type of surge that typically
causes damage not only needs a low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot')
connection to earth. It also needs the only necessary 'system'
component that absorbs surge energy - earth ground.

Surges must return to their originator. That may be earth, it may be the
power company.


http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to
ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning
protection device grounds the incoming signal connection
point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting
the threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance
(impedance) to ground where it is absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of
switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow
dissipation of the surge energy.


True.

How many professionals do you need? This EE was doing this stuff
decades ago €“ maybe longer than you existed. How many of your
protector designs have been tested by direct lightning strikes? How
many failed before you finally learned what provides effective
protection? He who learned the theory and gained decades of
experience says one €˜whole house protector provides a massively
better protection system for tens or 100 times less money.



If you are an EE then lets get down to the fundamentals of why you
think "impedance" and not RELATIVE impedance is the key here!? I don't
need citations that you think support your point. Just explain the
fundamentals of your point.



CL

w_tom wrote:

On Jul 11, 10:44 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
A protector is only as effective as the earth ground it can provide vs.
the
ground provided through the device it is protecting. Please recognize
the other 1/2 of that equation.

Again, discuss wire impedance. Why do telcos routinely install
protectors so close to earth ground and up to 50 meters distant from
their computers? Because separation between protector and electronics
increases protection. Impedance in that 50 meter separation means
even more surge will not seek earth ground via electronics and will
seek earth ground via the lowest impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot')
earthing connection.

OK, and its your contention that the quality of the path through the
electronics is irrelevant. Even if that path has infinite resistance, if
the ground is not absolute 0 the device will still get hit with the surge.


Protection is subverted when a protector is mislocated adjacent to
appliances. A protector too far from earth ground and too close to
appliances is why an adjacent TV, 8000 volts destructively, earthed a
surge on Page 42 Figure 8. TV damaged because the protector was too
close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

I don't follow this example you keep giving. Seems like your saying a
device adjacent to a protected device got damaged!?

On Jul 12, 9:04*am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
w_tom wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:44 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
A protector is only as effective as the earth ground it can provide vs..
the
ground provided through the device it is protecting. *Please recognize
the other 1/2 of that equation.

* Again, discuss wire impedance. *Why do *telcos routinely install
protectors so close to earth ground and up to 50 meters distant from
their computers? *Because separation between protector and electronics
increases protection. *Impedance in that 50 meter separation means
even more surge will not seek earth ground via electronics and will
seek earth ground via the lowest impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot')
earthing connection.

OK, and its your contention that the quality of the path through the
electronics is irrelevant. *Even if that path has infinite resistance, if
the ground is not absolute 0 the device will still get hit with the surge..



* Protection is subverted when a protector is mislocated adjacent to
appliances. *A protector too far from earth ground and too close to
appliances is why an adjacent TV, 8000 volts destructively, earthed a
surge on Page 42 Figure 8. *TV damaged because the protector was too
close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

I don't follow this example you keep giving. *Seems like your saying a
device adjacent to a protected device got damaged!?


I can help you out on that one. Anytime any electronic device is
damaged by a surge, to comply with W-'s religious beliefs, the damage
must be attributed to a plug-in surge protection, if one is present
anywhere. If a computer was plugged into a surge protector and NOT
damaged during an electrical storm, while a nearby TV, which had no
surge protector was, Tom will come up with some convoluted explanation
of how the surge protector at the computer CAUSED the damage at the
TV.

Of course this requires the suspension of some electrical basics,
common sense, and experience, but that clearly isn't an issue.

On Jul 12, 8:59 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
I already answered this. One protector is a lot cheaper than 4 scattered
throughout the house.
...
"Earthing" would be critical to a lightning surge. A power plant surge is
not returning to earth, its returning to the plant. The return path is the
critical key. Is that path through your device, or through the ground.
And how do you get the surge to prefer the ground over the ordinary path.
...
Earth does not sink energy that it does not create. Earth ground is only
relevant for lightning surges. ...
Surges must return to their originator. That may be earth, it may be the
power company.

If you are an EE then lets get down to the fundamentals of why you
think "impedance" and not RELATIVE impedance is the key here!? I don't
need citations that you think support your point. Just explain the
fundamentals of your point.

Power plant surges don't create consumer surges for numerous
reasons. But lightning and other surges such as those created by
utility switching may be destructive and do seek earth. Also install
one 'whole house' protector for typically non-destructive surges. We
install and earth one 'whole house' protector to protect from all
types of surges. The word *all* does not apply to plug-in protectors.

Install only four plug-in protectors around the house. If a plug-in
protector works as claimed, then we need maybe 100 plug-in protectors
including one at the furnace, one at the dishwasher, and one for every
far more critical appliance such as bathroom GFCIs and smoke
detectors. That is the kind of protection obtained from one 'whole
house' protector. Meanwhile, plug-in protectors do not even claim to
protect from the typically destructive surge and can even provide that
surge with more destructive paths through appliances (Page 42 Figure
8).

Instead of 100 plug-in protectors selling at $25 or $150, the
informed consumer installs superior protection from all types of
surges using only one properly earthed 'whole house' protector.
Superior protection for only $1 per appliance. Yes, you agree. But
this post is for many - not just you. Four protectors scatter around
the house does not even approach being sufficient or effective. Four
protectors - and not one provides a manufacturer spec for protection
from typically destructive surges? What kind of protection is that?
Profitable. Ineffective.

I don't know what your 'relevant impedance' is. But wire impedance
is why effective protectors are located close to earth AND separated
from appliances. Wire impedance for earthing concerns industry
professionals. A 'top of the front page' article in Electrical
Engineering Times entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from
Lightning Transients" discusses what is required for surge protection:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807830
Another aspect of impedance ... of a wire is predominately related to
its length and weakly related to its diameter. ... The length of the
cable increases the impedance dramatically.

The article is about surge protection. Therefore it describes what
is essential - a low impedance earth connection. It is about
effective protection. So it does not discuss plug-in protectors.

Any facility that requires effective protection earths surges at the
service entrance, worries about connection impedance. and addresse
grounding issues should damage not be averted. A plug-in protector
cannot protect from typically destructive surges. Its manufacturer
makes no such claims. Obvious: plug-in protectors are not used inside
telephone switching centers where damage must not occur and therefore
'whole house' protectors are used.

Protection inside appliances makes most surges irrelevant. A
typically destructive surge can overwhelm that existing protection.
So we install and better earth one 'whole house' protector to make a
typically destructive surge irrelevant AND to make other surges also
irrelevant.

Where does the US Air Force demand that protectors be located? Not
inside:
Grounding Systems
Introduction. This section covers requirements for grounding
and lightning protection systems,including systems installed
on or in areas such as explosives buildings, magazines,
operating locations and shelters.
...
15. Surge Protection.
15.1. Entering or exiting metallic power, intrusion detection,
communication antenna, and instrumentation lines must have
surge protection sized for lightning surges to reduce transient
voltages to a harmless level. Install the surge protection as
soon as practical where the conductor enters the interior of
the facility. Devices commonly used for this include metal
oxide varistors, gas tube arresters, and transzorbs.

Why at the service entrance? Any surge that might be stopped or
absorbed inside a building will simply find many other (some
potentially destructive) paths inside that building. A surge earthed
before entering the building means protection inside *all* (not just
four) appliances is not overwhelmed. A surge earthed at the service
entrance (ie breaker box) means a low impedance connection into earth
AND a high impedance path to appliances. Essential to effective
surge protection is that low impedance earth connection. Then surge
energy gets dissipated in earth; not inside the building. Routine is
to have direct lightning strikes and no damage.

A 'whole house' protector also makes that other typically non-
destructive surge irrelevant for tens or 100 times more money.

Of course this is not 100% protection. From the IEEE Green Book
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 ...

Where does a plug-in protector costing tens or 100 times more money
per appliance make any such claim? It doesn't. One glaring reason -
no low impedance connection to earth.

Surge created by a high voltage transmission line falling onto local
distribution is energy from the power plant (actually transformer that
is sourcing power) seeking a path back to that power plant via
earth. A surge so violent as to literally explode hundreds of
electric meters 10 meters off buildings did not cause any appliance
damage when one 'whole house' protector (and no plug-in protectors)
was properly earthed.

A surge that entered a building of powered off and networked
computers was simply earthed, destructively, by two plug-in protectors
through those adjacent computers and through the network. We traced
that surge by literally replacing ICs. What kind of protection from
two plug-in protectors? Completely ineffective as demonstrated on
Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000 volts earthed through the adjacent TV.

Why spend so much money on protectors that cannot and do not claim
to protect from the typically destructive surge? Why waste money on
plug-in protectors? Because it is the popular thing to do.
Facilities that must have protection don't waste money on plug-in
protectors. Instead 'whole house' protectors AND short (low
impedance) connections to a single point earth ground are installed.
Earthing is critical for protection from all typically destructive
surges. Same protection 'system' also protects from all other
surges. No plug-in protector can or does make that claim.

Effective protection protects from all types of surges – including
the type that is typically destructive. Where does any plug-in
manufacturer make that protection claim?

On Jul 12, 9:04*am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
I don't follow this example you keep giving. *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.

w_tom wrote:

Protection is subverted when a protector is mislocated adjacent to
appliances. A protector too far from earth ground and too close to
appliances is why an adjacent TV, 8000 volts destructively, earthed a
surge on Page 42 Figure 8. TV damaged because the protector was too
close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

Permit me to shoehorn this thread into the OT Joe Horn thread: a surge is
like a burglar or a vandal. You want to stop them at the perimeter, where
there's likely to be very little collateral damage. Since surges come in
through the power line (or phone line or CATV copper cable) the best place
to offload those excessive currents is where they enter. Using a protector
deep within the house allows the surge to enter a lot of the household
wiring that a protector placed at the wiring entrance *might* not.

Even though the common wisdom says to wait until a burglar is inside before
you shoot them., that advice usually comes from people who've never had to
clean up all that blood. (-: Unless you've seen it, you can't believe how
much blood a shot burglar can leave around while wriggling and writhing
around in pain, or worse yet, trying to escape. To add even more insult to
injury, your house becomes a crime scene and you can't wash away the blood
while it's still wet (which is about the only time you can ever wash blood
away).

But I digress. The point we are both trying to make (me via black humor!)
is that threats are best dealt with at or outside the permimeter of the
protected area, not within. If you're going to surge protect your home, it
makes a lot more sense to do it at the point where the wires (and the
surges) enter the building. That way, the surges don't dance around your
house like that shot burglar, ruining a lot of things that could have been
saved had the threat been stopped at the perimeter.

For those with a love of the weird, here's a lightning bolt burn on a man's
back:

http://teslamania.delete.org/frames/human_LF2.jpg

:Lightning goes where it wants, when it wants to, and the best hope there is
to lessen its damage is to keep it out of the house by offering a more
attractive (groan) path to the ground. The proper place for that "offer" is
right where the wires enter the house, not at some appliance located deep
within the house wiring.

--
Bobby G.

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 06:19:23 -0700 (PDT), w_tom wrote
Re "chain" surge suppressers?:

Instead of 100 plug-in protectors selling at $25 or $150, the
informed consumer installs superior protection from all types of
surges using only one properly earthed 'whole house' protector.
Superior protection for only $1 per appliance.

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?

Thanks

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 phase protector. 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 phase protector.

First, joules define a protector's life expectancy. As joules
increase, a protector's life expectancy increases exponentially. This
protector has an above average life expectancy. Being larger, it
would also earth more surge energy - absorb less. For others, this
protector to protect maybe 100 household appliances is listed at $42
or about $0.42 per protected appliance. Compare that to $150 per
appliance for Monster Cable plug-in protector that does not even claim
to provide this protection.

Above is about protector life expectancy - a long duration
consideration measured in years. Another consideration involves short
duration operation - what the protector does during microseconds.
This is defined by how that protector connects to and the quality of
earthing. A protector is as effective as its earthing. Nothing in
that Delta spec will provide information on its short term quality -
how well it will earth a surge.

For example, does the breaker box wire go up over the foundation,
then down to an earth ground rod? How to make that Delta protector
even better? Reroute that earthing wire through the foundation and
down to a single point earthing electrode. Having made a shorter wire
with less bends, now the Delta is an even better protector. If that
rerouted ground wire is separated from other wires, protection further
improves. Not only should that earthing wire be as short as
possible, no sharp bends, no splices, etc. It must also attach to the
same earth ground used by telephone, cable, and satellite dish.
Another factor that makes that Delta protector and equivalent
protectors more effective.

Delta's specs only discuss something long term - life expectancy.
What determines how well the Delta will perform during microseconds of
surge? Well, the Delta has above average joules meaning it is
conductive. But what really determines its short term performance is
how the Delta is earthed.

Whereas a plug-in protector would be promoted as a complete
solution; effective protection is a 'system'. The Delta is only one
'system' component. Only component always required in a protection
'system' is the earthing electrode. How good is that earthing
electrode and connections to that electrode? Earthing is a defining
parameter for Delta effectiveness. A protector is only as effective
as its earth ground.

Above discusses a 'secondary' protection system. Also inspect your
'primary' protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Again, notice what defines whether that protection layer will be
effective. I cannot stress how often utility install grounding is
left compromised as if it was never needed. After all, the lights
work. Therefore earth ground for the primary protection layer also is
not required?

The Delta protector appears to have specs significantly above
minimum. How effective is it? Well does its earthing meet and exceed
post 1990 code requirements?

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:20:01 -0700 (PDT), w_tom wrote
Re "chain" surge suppressers?:

The Delta protector appears to have specs significantly above
minimum.

Thanks for the info.

How effective is it? Well does its earthing meet and exceed
post 1990 code requirements?

I don't know. How is the quality of an "earthing" determined or
measured?

On Jul 13, 12:15*pm, "Robert Green"
wrote:
w_tom wrote:

* *Protection is subverted when a protector is mislocated adjacent to

appliances. *A protector too far from earth ground and too close to
appliances is why an adjacent TV, 8000 volts destructively, earthed a
surge on Page 42 Figure 8. *TV damaged because the protector was too
close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

Permit me to shoehorn this thread into the OT Joe Horn thread: a surge is
like a burglar or a vandal. *You want to stop them at the perimeter, where
there's likely to be very little collateral damage. Since surges come in
through the power line (or phone line or CATV copper cable) the best place
to offload those excessive currents is *where they enter. *Using a protector
deep within the house allows the surge to enter a lot of the household
wiring that a protector placed at the wiring entrance *might* not.

Even though the common wisdom says to wait until a burglar is inside before
you shoot them., that advice usually comes from people who've never had to
clean up all that blood. *(-: *Unless you've seen it, you can't believe how
much blood a shot burglar can leave around while wriggling and writhing
around in pain, or worse yet, trying to escape. * To add even more insult to
injury, your house becomes a crime scene and you can't wash away the blood
while it's still wet (which is about the only time you can ever wash blood
away).

But I digress. *The point we are both trying to make (me via black humor!)
is that threats are best dealt with at or outside the permimeter of the
protected area, not within. *If you're going to surge protect your home, it
makes a lot more sense to do it at the point where the wires (and the
surges) enter the building. *That way, the surges don't dance around your
house like that shot burglar, ruining a lot of things that could have been
saved had the threat been stopped at the perimeter.

For those with a love of the weird, here's a lightning bolt burn on a man's
back:

http://teslamania.delete.org/frames/human_LF2.jpg

:Lightning goes where it wants, when it wants to, and the best hope there is
to lessen its damage is to keep it out of the house by offering a more
attractive (groan) path to the ground. *The proper place for that "offer" is
right where the wires enter the house, not at some appliance located deep
within the house wiring.

--
Bobby G.


And no one here is disagreeing that a whole house surge protector,
properly installed, is the best first line defense for surge
protection. Of course it's best to deal with the surge before it gets
into the house.

The problem is, W_, with his religious beliefs, denies and rants that
plug-ins can't offer any protection and in fact, actual create
damage. Plug-ins can offer protection by clamping voltages coming
into a protected appliance. And how about people who can't install a
whole house protector? For example, those living in a rental
property or an apartment? Clearly using plug-ins can be effective.
Everyone here seems to agree, except W_, who's stuck on his religious
beliefs.

On Jul 14, 5:36*am, Caesar Romano wrote:
I don't know. How is the quality of an "earthing" determined or
measured?

"Measuring" earthing is not practical. Although we can measure
earth resistance, still, that does not determine quality of that
earthing 'system'.

In many cases, a single 10 foot earth ground rod is more than
sufficient if soil is conductive and moist. In simple terms, fine
soil tends to be more conductive. Sandy soil is typically less
conductive. Current habit is to install two ten foot ground rods
separated by more than 6 feet to make that single point ground more
conductive.

We earth to achieve a more conductive connection. But that
connection can never be sufficient. So we single point earth to make
earth beneath the building more equipotential. But we can never
create sufficient equipotential. So we make the earthing electrodes
more conductive.

If in sandy soil, other techniques include a halo (loop) ground
buried around and outside the building. In FL, with more lightning
and sandy soil, also standard is Ufer grounds. Effective because
concrete is an electrical conductor:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarch...i~20030930.htm
http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm

Ufer grounding means surge protection is installed when footings are
poured - not when the electrician arrives to install wires. Meanwhile
a utility offers suggestions on how to fix defectively installed
earthing:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
That buried interconnection wire converts multiple earthing electrodes
into single point earth ground while increasing conductivity.

Unfortunately we don't always know what is in the earth. For
example, one building was adjacent to a vein of graphite. Or a
transcontinental pipeline is buried nearby. Surge instead ignored
service entrance ground, passed through the building, to obtain earth
via more conductive graphite. Solution was to surround that building
with a buried conductor (halo ground) so as to make earth beneath the
building into a big single point ground - create equipotential. Surge
that traveled underground around and outside a building need not enter
the building (see Faraday shielding to appreciate the concept).

In another case, lightning would repeatedly strike an exterior
bathroom wall. They installed lightning rods. Lightning struck that
bathroom wall again. Why? Plumbing inside that wall connected to
deeper and more conductive limestone. Lightning rods were only
earthed 10 feet in sand. The bathroom wall, not lightning rods, made
a better connection to earth borne charges.

Make earthing as best as practicable. Then if damage does occur,
learn why that earthing (or connections to it) was not sufficient. No
good way to lest earthing without an actual lightning strike. Best we
can do is install earthing correctly using what has been well learned
the past 100 years.

Many assume a cold water pipe makes a best earth ground. Well, it
is conductive but it does not necessary provide equipotential. Also
it may be too far away (ie more than 10 feet). Pipe joints (ie
solder) may also compromise protection.

Another problem is a water well. Lightning may pass destructively
through a building to obtain earth via that well pump. Just another
reason why we want the service entrance ground to be a most conductive
earth ground AND why all incoming wires (overhead or buried) enter a
building connected short to the single point earth ground.

Described previously were factors that can increase wire impedance
and compromise surge protection. That earthing connection must be
short ('less than 10 feet'), no sharp bends, separated from all other
non-ground wires, not pass through or inside metallic conduit or
sheets, no splices, and all ground wire routed separately to meet at
the earthing electrode (single point earth ground).

One cannot have too much earthing. However most locations with
conductive soils have massive and probably sufficient earthing with
only one 10 foot ground rod. Every addition to the earthing system
has a diminishing return. But many facilities install massive
earthing system to obtain just a little better earthing. Ham radio
operators who learned this stuff will install better earthing systems:
http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/
Routine is to have direct lightning strikes without damage. But if
damage does occur, then plug-in protectors are not a solution.
Instead the earthing system is reevaluated for defects or
automatically upgraded:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
http://www.copper.org/applications/e.../nebraska.html
In one memorable instance at KROA, lightning ignored
the existing grounding system and instead followed the
coaxial cable directly into the transmitter room. The hit
destroyed expensive equipment, taking the station off
the air for several weeks. Luckily, no one was injured
but the incident was a strong indication that the
grounding system should be improved.

Based on a belief that "too much" grounding was
attracting lightning strikes, grounding connections on the
tower's six sets of guy wires had been disconnected
sometime in the past (Figure 4). This action may, in fact,
have helped direct lightning discharge current down the
antenna tower itself, bringing the strike closer to the
studio/transmitter building.

CPC has found that when near-surface ground resistance
is high, it is often better to drive one or more deep
electrodes than to rely on multiple shallow rods.

First and foremost, the entire electrical system must be
properly installed according to NEC requirements.
Equipment and system grounding circuits must be connected
to the neutral bus only at the primary electrical panel (first
disconnect), from which point a connection must be made
directly to the primary grounding electrode. ...
It is absolutely imperative that all surge suppressors be grounded.

For more information about earthing, see an industry benchmark -
Polyphaser's application notes such as:
http://tinyurl.com/3y747k
http://tinyurl.com/2rsdhj
and other papers at:
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

Meet post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements - then exceed
them:
http://www.eham.net/forums/Articles/40885
Welcome to an introduction to earthing - what provides the surge
protection.
http://www.citelprotection.com/citel/grounding.htm
A protection system with a poor ground is the same as having no protection at all.

So we do what has been proven effective elsewhere for the past 100
years. Then we learn from the experience. On average, typically
destructive surges occur once every seven years. However that number
can vary significantly (due to geology and other factors) even within
the same town.

On Jul 14, 9:09*am, wrote:
The problem is, W_, with his religious beliefs, denies and rants that
plug-ins can't offer any protection and in fact, actual create
damage. * *Plug-ins can offer protection by clamping voltages coming
into a protected appliance. *And how about people who can't install a
whole house protector? * For example, those living in a rental
property or an apartment? *

w_tom never said what trader only assumes. Plug-in protectors
provide ineffective protection at massively high prices. Plug-in
protectors do protect from one type of surge - that is typically not
destructive. Internal appliance protection makes that surge
irrelevant. Plug-in protectors offer no protection from the type of
surge that typically causes appliance damage. The other destructive
surge overwhelms protection inside appliances.

If a protector shunts (connects, clamps) wires together during a
surge, well, one wire short to earth ground means protection. However
if none of those wires are connected short to single point earth
ground, then the surge voltage is same on all wires; surge is now
provided more paths to find earth ground. Page 42 Figure 8.

Every responsible citation is quite blunt about what a protector
must do - divert surge energy into earth. Surges that don't enter a
building don't create damage. Surges that do enter a building find
all kinds of destructive paths to earth.

Meanwhile, the surge that a plug-in protector might protect from?
That surge is also made irrelevant by a ''whole house' protector.

What does the plug-in protector do? A $3 power strip with some ten
cent parts does protect from a surge made irrelevant by protection
inside appliances, and by one 'whole house' protector. What does that
plug-in protector accomplish? Higher profits.

trader already read a kludge solution for apartment dwellers whose
landlord will not install a tenant provided 'whole house'
protector. Take a power strip of maximum joules. Cut off its six
foot power cord as short as practicable since every foot of wire only
subverts protection. Plug that protector into an outlet closest to
the breaker box. Hopefully that protector will have some (obviously
inferior) earthing. Now an ineffective plug-in protector is kludged
- attempts to do what effective 'whole house' protectors accomplish.
To be effective, the protector must divert the typically destructive
surge into earth. Furthermore, move electronic equipment to outlets
farthest from the breaker box. That separation also increases
electronics protection.

Even a kludge solution puts a protector as close as possible to
earth ground and distant from electronics. However a far superior
solution (a 'whole house' protector and better earthing) is also tens
or 100 times less money. Money wasted on plug-in protectors is better
spent upgrading the earthing. A protector is only as effective as its
earthing.

Yes, plug-in protectors can protect from one type of surge - that
typically is not destructive. You would recommend spending tens or
100 times more money for a protector that does not protect from the
other and typically destructive type surge?

Why does a plug-in protector not list protection in numerical
specs? Plug-in protectors do not protect from the type of surge that
typically causes damage. If does protect from a type of surge made
irrelevant by protection inside appliances and made irrelevant by the
'whole house' protector. trader has been too busy insulting rather
than read what was posted. As another notes, effective protection
(that also costs massively less money) means keeping surge currents
out of every building and dissipiated in earth. A protector is only
as effective as its earth ground.

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:04 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
I don't follow this example you keep giving. 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.
..
Poor w_’s religious blinders prevent him from reading what the IEEE
guide says.

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

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

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

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service ‘ground’ is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

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


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?

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.


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

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:36 am, Caesar Romano wrote:
I don't know. How is the quality of an "earthing" determined or
measured?

..
The NIST guide cites US insurance information that indicates equipment
most likely to be damaged by lightning is computers with modem
connection and TV/related equipment - presumably with cable connection.
All can be damaged by high voltage between signal and power wires.

If a surge comes in on power wires and produces 1000A to earth through a
very good 10 ohm impedance to earth, the 'ground' at the service panel
rises 10,000V above 'absolute' ground potential. Equipment connected
only to power can float above 'absolute' ground. The only way to protect
equipment with both power and phone/cable connection is to make sure the
phone and cable 'ground' potential is the same as the power 'ground'.
That requires a *short* connection from phone/cable entrance protectors
to the power system 'ground'.

An example of a cable protector 'ground' wire that is too long is in the
IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.
..
If in sandy soil, other techniques include a halo (loop) ground
..
From
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_...finitions.html
"Halo Grounded Ring: A grounded No. 2 wire, installed around all four
walls inside a small building, at an elevation of approx. six inches
below the ceiling. They are used around transmitter equipment."
Perhaps w_ could learn the right name (ground ring).
..
Ufer grounding means surge protection is installed when footings are
poured - not when the electrician arrives to install wires.
..
Ufer grounds are required for most new construction, and are good ground
electrodes.
..
Meanwhile
a utility offers suggestions on how to fix defectively installed
earthing:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
That buried interconnection wire converts multiple earthing electrodes
into single point earth ground while increasing conductivity.
..
The buried interconnection wire (Figure 2 "right") is unlikely to keep
power/phone/cable grounds at the same potential.
Figure 2 "preferred" is correct.
..
all ground wire routed separately to meet at
the earthing electrode (single point earth ground).
..
Running phone and cable 'ground' wires to the earthing electrode will
almost certainly make the power-signal interconnection distance longer,
increasing the voltage between power/phone/cable wires.

The author of the NIST guide has written "the impedance of the grounding
system to ‘true earth’ is far less important than the integrity of the
bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."

Often the phone or cable entry protectors are distant from the power
service. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
..
Ham radio
operators who learned this stuff will install better earthing systems:
..
Ham radio operators are likely to have a direct lightning strike on
their antennas. Surge amps are far higher than can be conducted in on
power/cable/phone wires. For protection from a direct strike you need
lightning rods.

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
On Jul 14, 9:09 am, wrote:
The problem is, W_, with his religious beliefs, denies and rants that
plug-ins can't offer any protection and in fact, actual create
damage. Plug-ins can offer protection by clamping voltages coming
into a protected appliance. And how about people who can't install a
whole house protector? For example, those living in a rental
property or an apartment?

A protector is only as effective as its
earthing.
..
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.


Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

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?

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

--
bud--