Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both...)

thanks,

nate

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

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:10:24 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both...)


I've seen them with 2 connections (4 F connectors), that may have been
meant for use with satellite internet (separate rx and tx cables), but
don't remember any brand names.

thanks,

nate

Nate Nagel wrote:
Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both...)


Seems like someone should make one....

There are supposed to be modular assemblies where you can add the
elements necessary for what you have. (I have not seen them.)

A possible kludge would be to have a short coax on the suppressor "in"
side to a cable entry ground block with the cable source connected to
the other side of the ground block. Bolt another ground block to the 1st
ground block and run the antenna through it. The voltage on the center
conductor of the antenna is not limited when doing this.

--
bud--

Why can't you put a separate supressor before the splitter for each
circuit?

Nate Nagel wrote:

Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both...)

I haven't seen one. You really should be doing your coax surge
suppression at the point of entry for both your feeds. There are in-line
F connector surge suppressers that install quite nicely at the ground
block outside the house.

I had a couple cable modems blown up by nearby lightning strikes shortly
after I moved here. I drove a new ground rod, connected a ground block
to it with a short wire and installed the in-line suppressers at the
ground block. Since this installation I've had plenty more nearby
lightning strikes, but haven't lost any more cable modems or other
equipment. I don't use any additional coax suppressers in the house
either.

On Thu 25 Sep 2008 04:35:03a, Pete C. told us...


Nate Nagel wrote:

Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess
they assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not
both...)

I haven't seen one. You really should be doing your coax surge
suppression at the point of entry for both your feeds. There are in-line
F connector surge suppressers that install quite nicely at the ground
block outside the house.

I had a couple cable modems blown up by nearby lightning strikes shortly
after I moved here. I drove a new ground rod, connected a ground block
to it with a short wire and installed the in-line suppressers at the
ground block. Since this installation I've had plenty more nearby
lightning strikes, but haven't lost any more cable modems or other
equipment. I don't use any additional coax suppressers in the house
either.


An odd thing happened when we installed a coax suppressor. This was in a
new home with a new Cox coax feed. Our cable modem worked fine, but we
lost about half the cable stations from our cable box to TV. It was not a
channel filter. Cox advised us to remove it, and all channels were back.
I haven't tried another suppressor.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Thursday, 09(IX)/25(XXV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
6wks 4dys 17hrs 3mins
*******************************************
The wise open their minds, but a fool
opens his mouth.
*******************************************

On Sep 23, 7:10*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? *I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both....)

thanks,

nate

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

Here is a nice Intermatic:

http://www.smarthome.com/4872/Phone-...0-4T-2C/p.aspx

If you dont need whole-house power surge protection:

http://www.smarthome.com/4874/1-Line...r-IG1CM/p.aspx

Or maybe an in-wall protector for coax:

http://www.smarthome.com/4421/In-Wal...S-IW-HC/p.aspx

On Sep 23, 7:10*pm, Nate Nagel wrote:
Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? *I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both....)

thanks,

nate

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

I agree with the other poster in that coax surge protection should be
done at point of entry to your home. Which would make my previous
post for the Intermatic dedicated coax protector best, or if your coax
comes in close to your mains panel just add the Intermatic whole-house
surge unit. Best to stop the surge before it gets down the cable into
the house.

Pete C. wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both...)

I haven't seen one. You really should be doing your coax surge
suppression at the point of entry for both your feeds. There are in-line
F connector surge suppressers that install quite nicely at the ground
block outside the house.
..
The OP hopefully has ground blocks at point of entry.

If using a plug-in suppressor all wires going to a set of protected
equipment should go through the plug-in suppressor. That includes cable.
..
I had a couple cable modems blown up by nearby lightning strikes shortly
after I moved here. I drove a new ground rod, connected a ground block
to it with a short wire and installed the in-line suppressers at the
ground block. Since this installation I've had plenty more nearby
lightning strikes, but haven't lost any more cable modems or other
equipment. I don't use any additional coax suppressers in the house
either.
..
Not clear if there was one originally, but the cable installer should
have installed an entry ground block and connected it to the power
earthing system.

Also not clear if you are doing it, but the cable entry 'ground' must
connect to the power service earthing system. Best protection has the
cable entry ground block connecting to the ground at the power service
with a *short* wire. With a strong surge, the 'ground' at the house can
rise thousands of volts above 'absolute' ground. To protect equipment
connected to both power and cable, the power and cable grounds must rise
together.

--
bud--

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

On Thu 25 Sep 2008 04:35:03a, Pete C. told us...


Nate Nagel wrote:

Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess
they assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not
both...)

I haven't seen one. You really should be doing your coax surge
suppression at the point of entry for both your feeds. There are in-line
F connector surge suppressers that install quite nicely at the ground
block outside the house.

I had a couple cable modems blown up by nearby lightning strikes shortly
after I moved here. I drove a new ground rod, connected a ground block
to it with a short wire and installed the in-line suppressers at the
ground block. Since this installation I've had plenty more nearby
lightning strikes, but haven't lost any more cable modems or other
equipment. I don't use any additional coax suppressers in the house
either.


An odd thing happened when we installed a coax suppressor. This was in a
new home with a new Cox coax feed. Our cable modem worked fine, but we
lost about half the cable stations from our cable box to TV. It was not a
channel filter. Cox advised us to remove it, and all channels were back.
I haven't tried another suppressor.

Possibly the suppresser didn't have enough bandwidth to handle the
higher frequency channels without too much loss? Been a long time since
I worked for Cox in CT, so I'm not sure what they're up to these days.
The two Leviton inline suppressers I used here (from Depot) on my cable
feeds have not caused any issues with any of my cable channels.

bud-- wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both...)

I haven't seen one. You really should be doing your coax surge
suppression at the point of entry for both your feeds. There are in-line
F connector surge suppressers that install quite nicely at the ground
block outside the house.
.
The OP hopefully has ground blocks at point of entry.

If using a plug-in suppressor all wires going to a set of protected
equipment should go through the plug-in suppressor. That includes cable.
.
I had a couple cable modems blown up by nearby lightning strikes shortly
after I moved here. I drove a new ground rod, connected a ground block
to it with a short wire and installed the in-line suppressers at the
ground block. Since this installation I've had plenty more nearby
lightning strikes, but haven't lost any more cable modems or other
equipment. I don't use any additional coax suppressers in the house
either.
.
Not clear if there was one originally, but the cable installer should
have installed an entry ground block and connected it to the power
earthing system.

Also not clear if you are doing it, but the cable entry 'ground' must
connect to the power service earthing system. Best protection has the
cable entry ground block connecting to the ground at the power service
with a *short* wire. With a strong surge, the 'ground' at the house can
rise thousands of volts above 'absolute' ground. To protect equipment
connected to both power and cable, the power and cable grounds must rise
together.

--
bud--

Nothing here was up to snuff when I got here (previous owner was a power
line janitor). I have since replaced the crappy Stab-Loc panel with a
proper QO panel, installed two new ground rods (pounding them in did a
number on my carpal tunnel), installed ground blocks and the inline
suppressers on the cable feeds. The ground blocks are connected to the
first ground rod with a 1' long jumper so the grounds are about as close
together as possible. I also cleaned up the phone lines and
upgraded/replaced the power feed and sub panel in the shop as well.

On Sep 25, 11:30*am, bud-- wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? *I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they
assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both...)

I haven't seen one. You really should be doing your coax surge
suppression at the point of entry for both your feeds. There are in-line
F connector surge suppressers that install quite nicely at the ground
block outside the house.

.
The OP hopefully has ground blocks at point of entry.

If using a plug-in suppressor all wires going to a set of protected
equipment should go through the plug-in suppressor. That includes cable.
. I had a couple cable modems blown up by nearby lightning strikes shortly
after I moved here. I drove a new ground rod, connected a ground block
to it with a short wire and installed the in-line suppressers at the
ground block. Since this installation I've had plenty more nearby
lightning strikes, but haven't lost any more cable modems or other
equipment. I don't use any additional coax suppressers in the house
either.

.
Not clear if there was one originally, but the cable installer should
have installed an entry ground block and connected it to the power
earthing system.

Also not clear if you are doing it, but the cable entry 'ground' must
connect to the power service earthing system. Best protection has the
cable entry ground block connecting to the ground at the power service
with a *short* wire. With a strong surge, the 'ground' at the house can
rise thousands of volts above 'absolute' ground. To protect equipment
connected to both power and cable, the power and cable grounds must rise
together.

--
bud--

I tend to err towards massive overkill when it comes to surge
suppression. I do have a ground block at the entry point of the
cable, bonded to the breaker box ground, and also a whole house surge
suppressor at the panel. However, even with that in place, I still
lost a circuit board in my dishwasher, a couple surge strips, and a
power supply for my whole house air filter last year during a storm.
(I've since added some small point of use surge protectors at several
places throughout the house, although I'm not sure what I really could
do about the dishwasher or other hardwired appliances like the
stove.) There is no antenna currently installed, hence my question.
I would certainly ground the antenna lead similarly to the cable
should I install one, but I still am using surge strips with coax
connections at both my cable box and my cable modem.

nate

On Thu 25 Sep 2008 11:25:40a, Pete C. told us...


Wayne Boatwright wrote:

On Thu 25 Sep 2008 04:35:03a, Pete C. told us...


Nate Nagel wrote:

Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections?
I
just realized that I was considering running both cable and an
antenna
connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I
have
everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess
they assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but
not
both...)

I haven't seen one. You really should be doing your coax surge
suppression at the point of entry for both your feeds. There are in-
line
F connector surge suppressers that install quite nicely at the ground
block outside the house.

I had a couple cable modems blown up by nearby lightning strikes
shortly
after I moved here. I drove a new ground rod, connected a ground block
to it with a short wire and installed the in-line suppressers at the
ground block. Since this installation I've had plenty more nearby
lightning strikes, but haven't lost any more cable modems or other
equipment. I don't use any additional coax suppressers in the house
either.


An odd thing happened when we installed a coax suppressor. This was in
a
new home with a new Cox coax feed. Our cable modem worked fine, but we
lost about half the cable stations from our cable box to TV. It was not
a
channel filter. Cox advised us to remove it, and all channels were
back.
I haven't tried another suppressor.

Possibly the suppresser didn't have enough bandwidth to handle the
higher frequency channels without too much loss? Been a long time since
I worked for Cox in CT, so I'm not sure what they're up to these days.
The two Leviton inline suppressers I used here (from Depot) on my cable
feeds have not caused any issues with any of my cable channels.

Thanks, Pete. Maybe I'll give it another go. I'll look for Leviton.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Thursday, 09(IX)/25(XXV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Countdown till Veteran's Day
6wks 4dys 6hrs 37mins
*******************************************
A bird in the hand can be messy.
*******************************************

On Sep 25, 2:34*pm, N8N wrote:
*I do have a ground block at the entry point of the cable,
bonded to the breaker box ground, and also a whole housesurge
suppressor at the panel. *However, even with that in place, I still
lost a circuit board in my dishwasher, a couplesurgestrips, and a
power supply for my whole house air filter last year during a storm.
(I've since added some small point of usesurgeprotectors at several
places throughout the house, although I'm not sure what I really could
do about the dishwasher or other hardwired appliances like the
stove.) *

Those "couplesurgestrips" did what no protector must do - failed.
Undersized surge strips fail, gets the naive to recommend more, and
can even create a potential fire problem. Most every fire department
has seen this danger:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

A surge found earth ground destructively via dishwasher, furnace
filter, etc. What provides protection? Not any protector - whole
house or power strip. Protection is the building earthing electrode.
If that earthing electrode is insufficient, then a surge will find
other paths to earth, destructively, inside the house.

Protection has always been to earth before surges can enter a
building. That means a connection from each incoming wire to earth
must be short (ie 'less than 10 feet'), no sharp bends, no splices,
not inside metallic conduit, and all connection are to the same
earthing electrode. What is critical for that wire connection to
earth? Not wire diameter. More critical are shorter length, no sharp
bends, etc.

For example, if a ground wire from breaker box to electrode goes up
over the foundation and down to earth, then the wire is too long, is
probably bundled with other non-ground wires, and has too many sharp
bends. How a surge connects to earth determines whether the surge
will stay outside a building. That breaker box wire must go through
foundation and down to earth ground rod.

Reason for furnace filter and dishwasher damage is a surge that
found a better (destructive) path to earth. No 'point of use'
protector will avert that problem (as even its specs note). A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Apparently your
earthing electrode (or connection to that electrode) is insufficient.
Learn from what was damaged. 1) Upgrade your earthing or connections
to that earthing. 2) Notice that the “couplesurgestrip" was damaged;
was grossly undersized; may have even been a fire threat.

Learn from the damage. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

On Sep 25, 10:00*am, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:
An odd thing happened when we installed a coax suppressor. *This was in a
new home with a new Cox coax feed. *Our cablemodemworked fine, but we
lost about half the cable stations from our cable box to TV. *It was not a
channel filter. *Cox advised us to remove it, and all channels were back. *
I haven't tried another suppressor.

Those protectors do not even claim to provide needed protection.
Read its specs. It does not list protection from the typically
destructive surge. Essential is that cable make a short (ie 'less
than 10 foot') connection to the same earth ground electrode used by
everything else. And that the earthing electrode is a best earth
ground on the property. Cable companies routinely advise removing in-
line surge protectors.

Second, any properly constructed protector does not fail during a
surge. But failure does get the naive to recommend more ineffective
protectors. Effective protection system means nobody knows a surge
even existed; that no protector fails.

Third, to block surges, that in-line coax protector must stop or
absorb the same frequencies that carry TV signals. How does it not
block TV signals and yet block surges? Again, read its specs. It did
not claim to provide that protection.

w_tom wrote:
On Sep 25, 10:00 am, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:
An odd thing happened when we installed a coax suppressor. This was in a
new home with a new Cox coax feed. Our cablemodemworked fine, but we
lost about half the cable stations from our cable box to TV. It was not a
channel filter. Cox advised us to remove it, and all channels were back.
I haven't tried another suppressor.

Those protectors do not even claim to provide needed protection.
Read its specs. It does not list protection from the typically
destructive surge.
..
Complete nonsense.
..
Third, to block surges, that in-line coax protector must stop or
absorb the same frequencies that carry TV signals.
..
More complete nonsense. Get a suppressor rated for what you are using.

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
On Sep 25, 2:34 pm, N8N wrote:
I do have a ground block at the entry point of the cable,
bonded to the breaker box ground, and also a whole housesurge
suppressor at the panel. However, even with that in place, I still
lost a circuit board in my dishwasher, a couplesurgestrips, and a
power supply for my whole house air filter last year during a storm.
(I've since added some small point of usesurgeprotectors at several
places throughout the house, although I'm not sure what I really could
do about the dishwasher or other hardwired appliances like the
stove.)

..
Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
And one from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

Surprisingly w_ did not recommend a service panel suppressor. The are
effective on equipment connected to just to power. Adding connections
for phone and cable can be more complicated.
..
Those "couplesurgestrips" did what no protector must do - failed.
Undersized surge strips fail, gets the naive to recommend more, and
can even create a potential fire problem.
..
To w_, plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings. In fact high ratings
are readily available.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
..
Most every fire department
has seen this danger:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
..
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no
reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with
suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since
1998. None of the links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.
..
A surge found earth ground destructively via dishwasher, furnace
filter, etc. What provides protection? Not any protector - whole
house or power strip. Protection is the building earthing electrode.
..
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing.
In w_’s view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not
possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by
CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common
ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by
earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs
elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
..
What is critical for that wire connection to
earth? Not wire diameter. More critical are shorter length, no sharp
bends, etc.
..
For cable and phone entry protectors you want a short ground connection
to the ground at the power service. You want to minimize the voltage
between power and signal 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."
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
The statement of religious belief in earthing.

-_
bud--

On Sep 26, 12:23 pm, bud-- wrote:
More complete nonsense. Get a suppressor rated for what you are using.

Where is the inline coax protector that claims to protect from
typically destructive surges? Does not exist. Where are specs that
make that claim? The only inline protector that claims to protect
from typically destructive surges also need the short (ie 'less than
10 foot') connection to earth ground.

One industry benchmark for coax protectors is Polyphaser.
Polyphaser application notes are an industry standard for surge
protection. What do Polyphaser app notes discuss every time? Their
protectors? Of course not. Polyphaser app notes are industry
benchmarks for surge protection. Their app notes discuss what
provides protection: earthing.
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

On Sep 26, 12:30 pm, bud-- wrote:
Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversio...
And one from the NIST at:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

Both citations state why plug-in protectors make no protection
claims from typically destructive surges. Bud will never provide a
manufacturer spec that claims such protection. Bud will ignore
request for facts because Bud is a sales promoter of plug-in
protectors. No plug-in protectors will provide numerical specs for
protection.

The first citation demonstrates how a plug-in protector earths a
surge, 8000 volts destructively, through an adjacent TV. That is
effective protection? A surge not earthed before entering a building
MUST find earth ground inside the building. That plug-in protection
on Page 42 Figure 8: the surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively
through an adjacent TV. A protector without a short (ie 'less than 10
foot') connection to earth must earth that surge somewhe 8000
volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

Second citation is just as blunt. Surge energy does not just
disappear. A protector does not magically absorb that surge. Surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere. Therefore the NIST says on page
6 (Adobe page 8 of 24):
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.

Where does the effective protector divert surges? To earth ground.
Same NIST guide is even blunter. On page 17 (Adobe page 19 of 24):
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Either surge energy gets dissipated (absorbed) harmlessly by earth
OR that surge is diverted (8000 volts destructively) through adjacent
appliances. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
NIST, IEEE, and other professional organizations make that statement
repeatedly in guides and in Standards.

Will Bud's tiny protector absorb a surge? Of course not. Even the
cable company recommended removing ineffective (and massively
profitable) plug-in protectors. An effective protector absorbs almost
no energy while diverting massive surge energy into earth. Why does
one effective 'whole house' protector remain functional after direct
lightning strikes AND protect everything inside the building?
Effective protection also costs tens or 100 times less money.

Essential to surge protection is the quality of earth ground. An
example demonstrates the concept:
A FL couple had an exterior bathroom wall struck repeatedly.
Lightning rods were installed and connected to eight foot earthing
rods. Lightning again struck the bathroom wall. Why? Lightning took
the better connection to earth. Bathroom pipes connected to deeper,
more conductive limestone. Lightning rods were only earthed in sand.
Another example of why protection is only as effective as the
earthing. The surge found the better path to earth via bathroom pipes
– not via eight foot ground rods.

Any surge will seek a best connection to earthborne charges located
miles away. Any utility wire surge that finds a best path to earth
before entering a building need not enter that building. Where surge
damage occurs (ie a nuclear hardened maritime radio station), the
informed professional learned from the damage and corrected a
defective earthing system:
"Reliable Protection of Electronics Against Lightning: Some
Practical Applications" by van der Laan and van Deursen on 4 Nov 1998.

Where does surge energy get dissipated? Destructively inside a
building? Will a protector rated at a trivial hundred or thousand
joules dissipate hundreds of thousands of joules? Of course not.
Will an in-line coax protector stop what three miles of sky could
not? Obviously not. More reasons why surges must be dissipated in
earth. OP's solution means single point earth ground, coax wire
properly earthed by a ground block, and a 'whole house' protector on
incoming AC wires. That's what professionals recommend, what those two
citations demonstrate, and what a plug-in protector sales promoter
will not recommend.

w_tom wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:30 pm, bud-- wrote:

Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
And one from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

Bud will never provide a
manufacturer spec that claims such protection.
..
Provided often and ignored. For example a few months ago on this
newsgroup when w_ posted his drivel.
http://tinyurl.com/6alnza
..
Bud is a sales promoter of plug-in
protectors.
..
To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.
..
The first citation demonstrates how a plug-in protector earths a
surge, 8000 volts destructively, through an adjacent TV.
..
If poor w_ could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE
guide says in this example:

- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the power service ground that is
too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
- w_'s favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO
protection.

It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example
damages the second TV.

But with no valid technical arguments, w_ tries to twist what the IEEE
guide says.
..
Therefore the NIST says on page
6 (Adobe page 8 of 24):
..
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are the "easiest solution".

With no valid technical arguments, w_ tries to twist what the NIST guide
says.
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors
are effective.
..
Will Bud's tiny protector absorb a surge? Of course not.
..
Of course not. No one talks about absorbing surges except w_.
The IEEE guide explains, for those who can think, that plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping.
..
Why does
one effective 'whole house' protector remain functional after direct
lightning strikes AND protect everything inside the building?
..
A service panel suppressor is 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."


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

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

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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in] protector"?

--
bud--

On Sep 29, 12:34*pm, bud-- wrote:
Provided often and ignored. For example a few months ago on this
newsgroup when w_ posted his drivel.

Bud could have posted manufacturer specifications that claim
protection from each type of surge. But Bud is promoting protectors
that provide no such protection. So Bud does here what Bud does
everywhere - post insults.

Every responsible source says surge energy must be dissipated
someplace. Either inside the building or harmlessly in earth. Will
hundreds of thousands of joules be absorbed - made irrelevant - by a
tiny hundred joule protector? Of course not. Even protector
manufacturers that don't have an *always required earthing wire* will
not claim to provide that protection. Bud promotes ineffective
(unearthed) plug-in protectors. Instead of providing manufacturer
specs, Bud will always resort to mockery and insult. Sales are at
risk.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Therefore
every facility that routinely suffers surges - and no damage - is very
careful about what provides that protection. Single point earth
ground. Where massive surge energy gets harmlessly dissipated.

No earth ground means no effective protection.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT), w_tom
wrote:

On Sep 29, 12:34*pm, bud-- wrote:
Provided often and ignored. For example a few months ago on this
newsgroup when w_ posted his drivel.

Bud could have posted manufacturer specifications that claim
protection from each type of surge. But Bud is promoting protectors
that provide no such protection. So Bud does here what Bud does
everywhere - post insults.


For anyone who has never seen posts by w_tom before, be forewarned.
He's a usenet kook, who has been known to post advice that could kill
you if followed. His rants about surge suppression are just that -
rants of a lunatic. Bud performs a valuable service by rebutting W_Tom
to make sure the unwary are not fooled, and possible put at risk.

Bud has truth on his side, as well as documentation from the agencies
that are in charge of Electrical safety codes. They all disagree with
W_Tom. He's truly a sicko. You'll rarely see him post, except in
threads pertaining to surge suppression or lightning. I believe he
scans even groups he doesn't normally follow for any mention fo
certain key words like surge or lightning.

I'm sure he'll respond to this post with an attack on me. That's okay.
As long as nobody follows W_Tom's advice and gets hurt, it's well
worth any abuse he wants to lay on me.

On Sep 26, 9:15*am, w_tom wrote:
On Sep 25, 2:34*pm, N8N wrote:

*I do have a ground block at the entry point of the cable,
bonded to the breaker box ground, and also a whole housesurge
suppressor at the panel. *However, even with that in place, I still
lost a circuit board in my dishwasher, a couplesurgestrips, and a
power supply for my whole house air filter last year during a storm.
(I've since added some small point of usesurgeprotectors at several
places throughout the house, although I'm not sure what I really could
do about the dishwasher or other hardwired appliances like the
stove.) *

* Those "couplesurgestrips" did what no protector must do - failed.

I "fail" to see how that is bad - apparently an overvoltage got
through my whole house protector (according to the power company, in
their nice "GFY" form letter, a high voltage line was knocked into a
low voltage one by a falling tree, neatly bypassing the transformer,
so it must have been a big jolt) and the surge strips shut themselves
down rather than pass through the overvoltage to the equipment
connected to them. The more recent surge strips that I've purchased
(I don't ever buy simple power strips; I figure if I need a power
strip I'm probably going to have enough stuff plugged into it that
surge protection might be a good idea, esp. for interconnected
appliances like a rack of stereo equipment, computer peripherals,
etc.) have a warranty where if you keep all your paperwork the mfgr.
will replace the strip if this happens; as it was the ones that failed
were all ancient (one had a date code in the late 90's) and still and
all I'd rather spend $30 or so on a new one rather than have to
replace the equipment connected to it. If I see a storm developing I
do go around and switch off and/or unplug all the surge strips that
aren't powering "mission critical" equipment as well, but in this case
the incident happened at the very beginning of a storm, while I was
away from home, so I didn't have the chance to do that.

nate

(BTW I have no idea what happened to the spaces in my previous
message...)

On Sep 29, 5:40 pm, N8N wrote:
Those "couplesurgestrips" did what no protector must do - failed.
I "fail" to see how that is bad - apparently an overvoltage got
through my whole house protector (according to the power company, in
their nice "GFY" form letter, a high voltage line was knocked into a
low voltage one by a falling tree, neatly bypassing the transformer,
so it must have been a big jolt) and the surge strips shut themselves
down rather than pass through the overvoltage to the equipment
connected to them.

A surge does not enter the home like a wave on the ocean.
Electricity does not work that way. A surge first flowed through
*anything* in that path to earth. Long after that surge is flowing,
then something fails.

No surge protector works by stopping or blocking a surge. If a
surge protector failed, it simply abandoned appliances to the surge.
To provide protection, the protector must remain functional.
Ineffective protectors even fail as fast as possible to avoid these
scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

Observe the protector in pictures from zerosurge.com. Pprotector
components were removed and its light still said the protector is OK.
Why? Because a power strip protector is not electrically between the
surge and appliance as N8N has assumed. Protector components only
work when conducting; when diverting; when condcting and not absorbing
a surge. If power strip varistors disconnect, then an appliance is
still connected directly to AC mains and the surge. The appliance
must protect itself. Fortunately, all appliance already contain
protection internally.

How to sell power strip protectors to the naive? A surge too small
to overwhelm protection inside the computer easily destroyed the power
strip protector. Now the naive will recommend more power strip
protectors .... using assumption rather than knowledge. The power
strip protector was grossly undersized. Therefore a surge too small
to harm the computer destroyed that power strip AND got the naive to
recommend more.

No surge gets "through" anything. A surge can go left through the
protector or right through appliances. Appliances are connected
directly to AC mains even when plugged into a power strip protector.
Nothing does, nothing claims to, and nothing can block a surge. But
grossly undersizing a strip protector gets the naive to buy more.

Will a silly little varistor inside that power strip stop or absorb
what three miles of sky could not stop? Of course not. Assumption is
that a power strip will somehow block what three miles of sky could
not. Reality: a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Power strip protectors without earth ground do not even claim to
provide that protection in numeric specifications. A failed power
strip did not provide protection. Burn out is even a complete
violation of varistor manufacturer specs. A protector that failed did
nothing and sometimes will create those scary pictures.

On Sep 30, 10:46*am, w_tom wrote:
On Sep 29, 5:40 pm, N8N wrote:

* Those "couplesurgestrips" did what no protector must do - failed.
I "fail" to see how that is bad - apparently an overvoltage got
through my whole house protector (according to the power company, in
their nice "GFY" form letter, a high voltage line was knocked into a
low voltage one by a falling tree, neatly bypassing the transformer,
so it must have been a big jolt) and the surge strips shut themselves
down rather than pass through the overvoltage to the equipment
connected to them.

* *A surge does not enter the home like a wave on the ocean.
Electricity does not work that way. *A surge first flowed through
*anything* in that path to earth. *Long after that surge is flowing,
then something fails.

My understanding is that there are generally three MOVs in a typical
AC-only surge protector, H-N, N-G, H-G. If any of those MOVs fail
they generally fail shorted rather than open, directly either shorting
a current-carrying conductor to ground or else shorting hot to
neutral. This causes an internal fuse or circuit breaker to open,
completely disconnecting the load from the line. Thus this *does*
protect the load from a surge, unless the overvoltage is such that it
can actually cross the gap in the fuse/breaker.

Or am I missing something?

nate

w_tom wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:34 pm, bud-- wrote:
Provided often and ignored. For example a few months ago on this
newsgroup when w_ posted his drivel.

Bud could have posted manufacturer specifications that claim
protection from each type of surge.
..
"Each type of surge" is nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have protection
elements from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all
possible surge modes.
..
But Bud is promoting protectors
that provide no such protection.
..
I promote only accurate information to counter w_'s religious dogma.
..
So Bud does here what Bud does
everywhere - post insults.
..
Poor w_ is insulted by reality.
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

w_ is evangelical in his belief in earthing, and trolls google-groups
for "surge" to spread his religious tract to the heathens. Even the
sewing machine newsgroups must be saved from the evils of plug-in
suppressors.
..
No earth ground means no effective protection.
..
w_'s religious mantra protects him from disturbing thoughts (aka reality).

Still no link to another lunatic 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in] protector"?

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

--
bud--

bud-- wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections?
I just realized that I was considering running both cable and an
antenna connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips
that I have everything connected to only have connections for one coax
(I guess they assumed that someone would have either cable or an
antenna but not both...)


Seems like someone should make one....

There are supposed to be modular assemblies where you can add the
elements necessary for what you have. (I have not seen them.)

A possible kludge would be to have a short coax on the suppressor "in"
side to a cable entry ground block with the cable source connected to
the other side of the ground block. Bolt another ground block to the 1st
ground block and run the antenna through it. The voltage on the center
conductor of the antenna is not limited when doing this.

I'm beginning to re-think how to protect equipment that I really care
about. Perhaps Permalloy boxes?

Several times in the past few years I have lost equipment due to a
proximate strike. The most recent was when I was looking out the
window and saw lightning hit the chimney of the house across the street.
Numerous brick were "vaporized" and my theater system, several
computers and some other stuff all went belly-up. I had protection
against conducted surges, what I didn't have was protection at each
device against inductively coupled energy. My guess is a few million
amps and a fraction of a turn, all on the load side of the surge
suppressor. ugh!

Boden

w_tom wrote:
On Sep 29, 5:40 pm, N8N wrote:
Those "couplesurgestrips" did what no protector must do - failed.
I "fail" to see how that is bad - apparently an overvoltage got
through my whole house protector (according to the power company, in
their nice "GFY" form letter, a high voltage line was knocked into a
low voltage one by a falling tree, neatly bypassing the transformer,
so it must have been a big jolt) and the surge strips shut themselves
down rather than pass through the overvoltage to the equipment
connected to them.
..
Surge suppressors that can handle thousands of amps for a surge of less
than a millisecond are rapidly destroyed by "overvoltage" (which is not
a "surge"). That applies to both plug–in suppressors and service panel
suppressors. The author of the NIST guide has written "in fact, the
major cause of [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage,
rather than an unusually large surge."

A few plug-in suppressors have circuits that disconnect on overvoltage.

For plug-in suppressors, the IEEE guide explains at length that the
protected load can be connected across the MOV, so it will be
disconnected with a damaged MOV - or connected so it stays live when
MOVs are disconnected. A good suppressor should have the protected load
across the MOV. (For overvoltage that does not guarantee the protection
can clear on high voltage.)
..


Ineffective protectors even fail as fast as possible to avoid these
scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
..
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no
reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with
suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since
1998. None of the sources even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.
..
Observe the protector in pictures from zerosurge.com. Pprotector
components were removed and its light still said the protector is OK.
..
This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves
steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police to see
if a MOV theft ring is active in your area.

As N8N wrote, MOVs normally fail in high current mode. That produces
heat which causes a UL required thermal disconnect to remove the MOV
from the circuit.
..
Assumption is
that a power strip will somehow block what three miles of sky could
not.
..
Poor w_ refuses to understand how plug-in suppressors work. Clearly
explained in the IEEE guide.

Poor w_ also ignores that N8N’s event was "overvoltge", not a "surge".
..
Reality: a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
Reality: w_ is a religious fanatic.

Still no link to another lunatic 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in] protector"?

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

--
bud--

On Sep 30, 11:32 am, N8N wrote:
My understanding is that there are generally three MOVs in a typical
AC-only surge protector, H-N, N-G, H-G. If any of those MOVs fail
they generally fail shorted rather than open, directly either shorting
a current-carrying conductor to ground or else shorting hot to
neutral. This causes an internal fuse or circuit breaker to open,
completely disconnecting the load from the line. Thus this *does*
protect the load from a surge, unless the overvoltage is such that it
can actually cross the gap in the fuse/breaker.

Errors upon errors. But you are correct. Those are popular myths
promoted by the electrically naive (ie salty@dog) and protector sales
promoters (bud).

First, if any MOV vaporizes, then it has violated Absolute Maximum
Parameters listed at the top of every datasheet from every MOV
manufacturer. Only acceptable MOV failure mode is to degrade.
Degrade means its voltage changes 10% AND the MOV is not burned,
shorted, open, or vaporized. Because the naive observe grossly
undersized protectors burn, then the naive *know* vaporization, et al
is a normal failure mode.

Scary pictures show what can happen when MOVs fail by shorting,
vaporizing, etc:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
Most every fire department has seen these totally unacceptable
events. Only the naïve say this is acceptable.

Read any MOV manufacturer datasheet. Voltage, current, or energy
necessary to create a shorted or vaporized MOV is well beyond where
chart lines end ... because that failure mode is unacceptable and a
threat to human safety.

Second, this MOV failure mode does not disconnect any load. To
disconnect a grossly undersized protector even faster, its thermal
fuse is tiny. A thermal fuse only disconnects MOVs. And that surge
may be even smaller. An even smaller surge will blow that thermal fuse
so that MOVs do not vaporize. Again, it gets the naive to promote
that protector.

Third, you have assumed an open fuse will stop what three miles of
sky cannot. Read the numbers on any fuse. Typically rated for ‘x’
amperes and 250 volts. Why 250 volts? Because electricity at higher
voltage will continue to flow through that blown fuse. Assume your
assumption is correct: that a fuse blows to disconnect the appliance.
Suddenly that fuse rated at only 250 volts will stop 6000 volts? Of
course not. The blowing fuse maintains a plasma path that continues
to conduct that surge until the surge terminates. Fuses never open to
disconnect a surge.

Surges are current mode events. Voltage will rise as high as
necessary to conduct or arc through whatever tries to stop it. Any
protector that would stop or disconnect from a surge is a myth.
Protection is always about diverting surges as even Bud's citations
bluntly state.

Assumed is that a fuse will blow fast enough. It could not stop
voltage. It also cannot open fast enough. Surge current flows
simultaneously through everything in that path to earth - including
the appliance. A fuse takes tens or hundreds of milliseconds to
blow. But a surge has already done damage and terminated in
microseconds. 300 consecutive surges could pass through that fuse
before a fuse (or circuit breaker) even thinks about blowing. Junk
science does not provide numbers. This post says why AND includes
numbers.

Summary so far: Why is a surge never blocked - especially by a
fuse? a) Surge flows through everything long before a fuse sees that
surge. b) 250 volt fuse cannot stop surges. c) Fuses take maybe 1000
times too long to open. d) Fuse only tries to protect MOVs; does not
disconnect the appliance. Now move on to other myths that promote
plug-in protectors.

Fourth: what does every Bud citation and every citation from me
state? From the NIST on page 17 (Adobe page 19):
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

A surge is not stopped or absorbed by any protector. NIST states
exactly where that surge energy must be diverted to: earth ground.
Previously discussed was wire impedance. An effective protector makes
a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground. Why? Too much
impedance (not resistance) means the surge finds earth ground,
instead, inside the building. What happens when a plug-in protector
is adjacent to the appliance (obviously something like 120 ohms
impedance from the breaker box)? The plug-in protector with all but
no earthing connection diverts the surge, 8000 volts destructively, to
earth via an adjacent TV. That is Bud's other citation: Page 42
Figure 8.

We engineers have seen this repeatedly when tracing surge damage.
The plug-in protector provides the surge even with more potentially
destructive paths to earth via appliances.

How to identify the ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated
earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer will not even discuss earthing.
Industry benchmarks in surge protection such as Polyphaser discuss
earthing extensively:
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

Fifth: what do MOVs H-G, H-N, and N-G do? MOVs do not stop or
absorb surges. The surge seeking earth is simply distributed
(diverted, shunted, bonded, connected) from one wire to all wires.
Now that surge has even more paths to destructively find earth
ground. One classic example is Page 42 Figure 8. A surge exceeding
8000 volts puts 8000 volts destructively inside that TV. What did the
plug-in protector do? Exactly what its manufacturer specs claim.
Protector did nothing but give the surge a path to earth via the
adjacent TV.

N8N has accurately described what so many believe (assume). How
many errors and outright myths promote plug-in protectors? At least
nine have been identified in this post. MOVs must degrade - must
never vaporize or open. Every MOV manufacturer says this. Nothing
stops or blocks surges - especially fuses. Fuses voltage is woefully
too low; response time is 1000 times too long. Thermal fuse is for MOV
protection - never protects or disconnects the load. If a thermal
fuse - the emergency backup protection circuit - does not open fast
enough, then scary pictures can result. Every responsible source
describes what provides protection. Not a protector. Protection is
earth ground. Surge energy can never be blocked or absorbed. Surge
energy must be dissipated harmlessly in earth.

What does the effective protector have? Typically the 'less than 10
feet', no sharp bends, etc. connection to earth.

A $3 power strip with some ten cent parts sells for $25 or $150.
Why do APC, Tripplite, Belkin, Monster Cable, etc not sell 'whole
house' protectors? Profit margin on plug-in protectors is obscene.
Only responsible companies sell 'whole house' protectors. Unlike
APC, et al, responsible companies have names that everyone should
recognize: Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Keison,
Leviton, GE, and others.

Learn what the professionals do. Your telco's switching computer is
connected by overhead wires everywhere in town. It can suffer
typically 100 surges during every thunderstorm. How often have you
been without phone service for five days as they replace that
computer? Never. Telcos use a 'whole house' protector on every
incoming wire of every cable - connected as close to earth ground as
is practicable. Separation between protector and electronics
increases protection – contrary to what plug-in promoters claim.
Telco wants their protector up to 50 meters separated from electronics
to increase protection. Telco does not waste money on plug-in
protectors. The telco has same surge problems as a homeowner - just
more of them. So that telephone service works just fine during every
thunderstorm, telcos use better earthing, 'whole house' protectors,
and no plug-in protectors. Telco does not install protectors that
would open or vaporize to provide protection. And telcos have been
doing this (not using plug-in protectors) for the past 100+ years.

Reality cannot be explained in a sound byte. Plug-in protectors (ie
what you were told) is sound byte logic (junk science reasoning).
However, a sound byte can summarize the above: No earth ground means
no effective protection. Surge energy must be dissipated where?
Harmlessly in earth ground. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

On Sep 30, 4:39 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Sep 30, 11:32 am, N8N wrote:

My understanding is that there are generally three MOVs in a typical
AC-only surge protector, H-N, N-G, H-G. If any of those MOVs fail
they generally fail shorted rather than open, directly either shorting
a current-carrying conductor to ground or else shorting hot to
neutral. This causes an internal fuse or circuit breaker to open,
completely disconnecting the load from the line. Thus this *does*
protect the load from a surge, unless the overvoltage is such that it
can actually cross the gap in the fuse/breaker.

Those are popular myths
promoted by the electrically naive (ie salty@dog) and protector sales
promoters (bud).
..
w_ is so pathetic.
..
Because the naive observe grossly
undersized protectors burn, then the naive *know* vaporization, et al
is a normal failure mode.
..
Nobody talked about vaporization. w_ is hallucinating again.
..

Scary pictures show what can happen when MOVs fail by shorting,
vaporizing, etc:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
..
The lie repeated. w_ should read his own sources.
..
Summary so far: Why is a surge never blocked - especially by a
fuse?
a) Surge flows through everything long before a fuse sees that
surge.
..
What is required by UL is a thermal protector that disconnects an
overheating MOV. The thermal protector may or may not be a fuse.
The thermal protector opens after the MOV conducts at normal voltage.
That is after the surge.
Previous to that the MOV has clamped the voltage.
..
b) 250 volt fuse cannot stop surges.
..
The thermal protector opens after the surge. (It may not work for
“overvoltage” as both nate and I said.)
..
c) Fuses take maybe 1000
times too long to open.
..
The thermal protector opens after the surge.
..
d) Fuse only tries to protect MOVs; does not
disconnect the appliance.
..
Covered in a previous post citing extensive discussion in the IEEE
guide. In most good plug-in suppressors, the protected load is
connected across the MOV so it is disconnected with the MOV.
..
Now move on to other myths that promote
plug-in protectors.

Fourth: what does every Bud citation and every citation from me
state? From the NIST on page 17 (Adobe page 19):
..
Repeating:
“What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are the ‘easiest solution’.”
..
A surge is not stopped or absorbed by any protector.
..
If poor w_ did not have religious blinders he could read in the IEEE
guide that plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage
on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor.
..
The plug-in protector with all but
no earthing connection diverts the surge, 8000 volts destructively, to
earth via an adjacent TV.
..
The lie repeated.
..
Fifth: what do MOVs H-G, H-N, and N-G do? MOVs do not stop or
absorb surges.
..
w_ is so blind. The MOVs limit the voltage going to the protected
equipment to a voltage safe for the protected equipment.
..
N8N has accurately described what so many believe (assume). How
many errors and outright myths promote plug-in protectors?
..
What nate wrote was accurate.

w_ still apparently hasn’t figured out nate’s ‘event’ was
“overvoltage”, not a “surge”.

Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily available for
low cost. They are very unlikely to fail (except for “overvoltage”
which will also rapidly destroy service panel suppressors.)
..
A $3 power strip with some ten cent parts sells for $25 or $150.
..
One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.
..
Unlike
APC, et al, responsible companies have names that everyone should
recognize: Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Keison,
Leviton, GE, and others.
..
All these “responsible” companies except SquareD make plug-in
suppressors.

For it’s “best service” panel suppressor SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [surge
suppressor] devices at the point of use."
..
Reality cannot be explained in a sound byte.
..
Like “no earth ground means no effective protection.”
..
A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.
..
The required religious sound byte.

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

And still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in]
protector"?
- Why does “responsible” manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

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

--
bud--

On Sep 30, 11:24 am, Boden wrote:
bud-- wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:

Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections?
I just realized that I was considering running both cable and an
antenna connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips
that I have everything connected to only have connections for one coax
(I guess they assumed that someone would have either cable or an
antenna but not both...)

Seems like someone should make one....

There are supposed to be modular assemblies where you can add the
elements necessary for what you have. (I have not seen them.)

A possible kludge would be to have a short coax on the suppressor "in"
side to a cable entry ground block with the cable source connected to
the other side of the ground block. Bolt another ground block to the 1st
ground block and run the antenna through it. The voltage on the center
conductor of the antenna is not limited when doing this.

I'm beginning to re-think how to protect equipment that I really care
about. Perhaps Permalloy boxes?

Several times in the past few years I have lost equipment due to a
proximate strike. The most recent was when I was looking out the
window and saw lightning hit the chimney of the house across the street.
Numerous brick were "vaporized" and my theater system, several
computers and some other stuff all went belly-up. I had protection
against conducted surges, what I didn't have was protection at each
device against inductively coupled energy. My guess is a few million
amps and a fraction of a turn, all on the load side of the surge
suppressor. ugh!

Boden


Only about 5% of lightning strikes are over 100,000 A. Few are over
200,000A (not that isn’t plenty).

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

"Protection against conducted surges" is not described. If you have
just a service panel suppressor, the 'ground' wires from cable and
phone entry protectors to the ground at the power service has to be
short. An example of a 'ground' wire that is too long is in the IEEE
guide starting pdf page 40. A short wire prevents high voltages from
developing between power and signal wires at the service points.

The interior wiring can act as an antenna, either long wire or loop,
when the strike is very close. This sounds like what you are
suggesting. An example of a loop would be cable and power wires,
connected at the service points, with the open end of the loop
connected to a TV. A plug-in suppressor should protect against that.

As I wrote earlier, if you use a plug-in suppressor all wiring going
to a set of protected equipment has to go through the suppressor. That
includes in particular cable and phone wires.

There are other wires that can act as antennas for direct pickup. That
includes speaker and alarm wires. Pretty hard to protect. Your
Permalloy box would have to include the speakers. The manufacturer
should provide the protection.

--
bud--

On Sep 30, 12:24*pm, Boden wrote:
Several times in the past few years I have lost equipment due to a
proximate strike. * The most recent was when I was looking out the
window and saw lightning hit the chimney of the house across the street.
* Numerous brick were "vaporized" and my theater system, several
computers and some other stuff all went belly-up. *I had protection
against conducted surges, what I didn't have was protection at each
device against inductively coupled energy. *

What kind of protection against conducted surges?

To appreciate that chimney damage, view another example. A
lightning bolt struck a tree some 20 feet from a horse. Therefore the
horse was killed by a direct lightning strike. How? First learn the
complete circuit from cloud to earthborne charges. Will lightning
take a 5 mile path across the sky to those charges? Of course not.
Lightning takes the electrically shorter path. That is three mile
down to the tree and four miles through earth to those charges.

Also in that shorter path was up the horse’s hind legs and down its
fore legs. Again the electrically shorter path means the horse was
killed by a direct lighting strike. You saw lightning hit the tree.
Was observation sufficient to know what happened? A horse was
directly struck by same lightning that also passed through another
electrical conductor – the tree.

Same applies to a house. If household earthing is not single point,
then a surge also could have risen up into your house. passed through
household appliances, then back into earth - just like the horse.

You had damage because your household equipment was conducting that
direct lightning strike.

Can surges be induced using electromagnetic fields? A 200 foot long
aerial wire was near a direct strike. Therefore thousands of volts
appear on that wire. We connect an NE-2 neon glow lamp from that
antenna to earth ground. A lamp that normally conducts maybe 0.01
amps to glow. That tiny lamp conducts a tiny current causing the same
antenna voltage to drop to tens of volts. Induces fields are easily
made irrelevant even by a tiny conductor such as the NE-2 glow lamp.

In another case, lightning struck a lightning rod. The entire
lightning strike was flowing to ground on a wire outside and only four
feet from a PC. The PC works just fine - did not even glitch. Why?
Those massive lightning currents create fields that even the PC design
makes irrelevant.

If nearby lightning was so destructive, then a nearby strike would
destroy every nearby TV, cell phone, and automobile radio (on or
off). Why are these not damaged? Tiniest protection to make those
induced fields irrelevant is that easy and standard inside all those
devices.

Does the above horse example also explain your damage? The answer
starts with reviewing how all incoming utility wires in every incoming
cable are earthed before entering the building. For example, was your
cable earthed short to the same earthing electrode that is only 10
feet from the breaker box? All incoming utilities must connect to the
same earthing electrode before entering a building. One utility
demonstrates how to correct earth grounds that would otherwise create
appliance damage:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

So what protector would have blocked or absorbed that surge?

On Oct 1, 5:45 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Sep 30, 12:24 pm, Boden wrote:

Several times in the past few years I have lost equipment due to a
proximate strike. The most recent was when I was looking out the
window and saw lightning hit the chimney of the house across the street..
Numerous brick were "vaporized" and my theater system, several
computers and some other stuff all went belly-up. I had protection
against conducted surges, what I didn't have was protection at each
device against inductively coupled energy.

Will lightning
take a 5 mile path across the sky to those charges? Of course not.
..
In fact it can. It is the strike "out of the blue [sky]".
..
Same applies to a house. If household earthing is not single point,
then a surge also could have risen up into your house. passed through
household appliances, then back into earth - just like the horse.
..
It is very unlikely a phone entry protector was not connected to the
power earthing system. It is a little more likely a cable entry
protector was not connected.
..
Can surges be induced using electromagnetic fields?
..
There was a very limited investigation of surge damage to equipment
that included an insurance company, and a utility. One of the cases
had several channels of a multichannel home audio amp that were
damaged by directly induced voltage on speaker lines from a near
strike.
..
The answer
starts with reviewing how all incoming utility wires in every incoming
cable are earthed before entering the building. For example, was your
cable earthed short to the same earthing electrode that is only 10
feet from the breaker box? All incoming utilities must connect to the
same earthing electrode before entering a building.
..
Not just the same electrode. The length of the 'ground' wire from the
phone/cable entry protector to the power system ground or common
bonding point must be minimized.

The IEEE guide has an example of a ‘ground’ wire that is too long
starting pdf page 40.
..
One utility
demonstrates how to correct earth grounds that would otherwise create
appliance damage:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
..
“Preferred” is correct. “Right” is bad. “Wrong” is, amongst other
things, a code violation.

Many houses have the cable/phone entry points distant from the power
service, so a short wire connecting entry protectors to power system
ground is not possible. In that case, the IEEE guide says in the
example above "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is
to use a multiport protector."

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
Fortunately, all appliance already contain
protection internally.

I've seen you make this claim many times. Could you please give a reference to
a manufacturer's data sheet on a common appliance (TV, computer, stereo) with
surge protection data?
Thanks,
Doug

On Oct 2, 12:44 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:
I've seen you make this claim many times. Could you please give a reference to
a manufacturer's data sheet on a common appliance (TV, computer, stereo) with
surge protection data?

If seeking "surge protection data", then you are asking the wrong
question. Industry standards define how much surge an appliances
should withstand without damage. A 1970 industry standard defined 600
volts without damage for 120 volt electronic appliances. Those old
standards existed long before PCs even existed.

Other standards: For example, Ethernet ports must withstand 2000
volts.

Even low voltage interface ICs now contain 2000 or 15,000 volt
internal protection as even required by an IEC standard. A USB
interface chip datasheet demonstrates that standard:
http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX3349EA.pdf

Telco standards require phone appliances to withstand a metallic
voltage of 800 V max and a longitudinal voltage of 1500 V max. I
believe may be from FCC Part 68. The point: so many standards define
internal protection that I am only grabbing random examples.

One ATX power supply spec (sorry - forgotten which one) said:
Section 3.1.4.2 Surge Voltages
The peak value of the injected unipoloar wave form shall be
2.0 kV measured at the input of the power supply for the
common and normal modes of transient surge injection.
The surge withstand test must not produce:
Damage to the power supply
Disruption of the normal operation of the power supply
Output voltage deviation exceeding the limits of Section 3.2.1.

All appliances contain some protection. Those who never learned this
stuff will then deny when a varistor or avalanche diode cannot be
found. Protection is integrated into every design including dimmer
switches. If a manufacturer is being honest, those numbers appear in
manufacturer specifications (a reference to power supplies marketed to
the electrically challenged such as A+ Certified computer techs).
Since surge protection myths are so widespread, most do not even know
that every appliance contains internal protection. If this was known,
then many would start asking embarrassing questions that plug-in
protector manufacturers do not want to answer.

How to sell power supplies to the electrically challenged? Provide
no manufacturer specs. Sell a power supply that is missing essential
functions (ie to A+ Certified Computer techs) at lower price and
higher profits. When an inferior supply fails, then blame a surge;
not the missing internal protection and not the electrically naive
computer assembler.

So widespread is technical ignorance that most people also do not
know phone lines have protection installed free by the telco at every
subscriber interface.

Requested were sources for protection inside every appliance.
Provided are examples of industry standards that only the few
electrically knowledgeable would know. With so many electrically
naive consumers (who don't even know that all appliances contain some
protection), then the market is also ripe for selling a $3 power strip
with some ten cent parts for $150.

All appliances contain internal protection. Why can this 120 volt
computer grade UPS output 200 volt square waves with a spike of up to
270 volts between those square waves? This UPS output may even harm
some small electric motors and power strip protectors. But protection
in all computers makes this dirty 'modified sine wave' irrelevant
(cause no damage). Why does that dirty UPS output not harm
computers? Because all computers are required (by industry standards)
to contain protection that makes 'dirty' UPS electricity irrelevant.
Just another example of protection routinely installed in all
appliances.

Enough examples? Furthermore, the examples also came with
numbers. Those who only speculate also don't provide numbers. Why
numerous examples when a clear majority did not know of protection
routinely in electronics? Well, the majority also knew Saddam had
WMDs. A typical example explains why technical knowledge is so ra A
+ Certified computer techs need not know anything about electricity to
be certified.

another thought: thank God the Iraqi insurgents don't have surge
suppressors.

On Oct 2, 11:20*am, bud-- wrote:
Many houses have the cable/phone entry points distant from the power
service, so a short wire connecting entry protectors to power system
ground is not possible. In that case, the IEEE guide says in the
example above *"the only effective way of protecting the equipment is
to use a multiport protector."

Bud will post endlessly to avoid providing one fact. The plug-in
manufacturer spec numbers that claim protection. Oh. It only claims
to protect from a typically not destructive surge. Proper earthing
and a 'whole house' protector mean protection from all types of
surges. If the effective solution does not exist, then one can at
least protect from a type of surge that typically does no damage.

As for the typically destructive surge - no earthing and 'whole
house' protector has permitted plug-in protectors to find more
destructive paths through appliances. In some cases, no plug-in
protector would have provided better protection. But then that is
simply from an engineer again telling the sales promoter what has been
seen repeatedly over the decades.

So essetial is single point earthing that one utility even provides
suggestions how to fix defective multipoint earthing:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

Where is that manufacturer spec that claims protection from each
type of surge? He promotes plug-in protectors and still cannot
provide that spec? No wonder he posts long rambling posts often chock
full of insults. Even the manufacturer will not claim to provide that
protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
No way around reality.

On Oct 2, 4:13 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:44 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote:

I've seen you make this claim many times. Could you please give a reference to
a manufacturer's data sheet on a common appliance (TV, computer, stereo) with
surge protection data?

Even low voltage interface ICs now contain 2000 or 15,000 volt
internal protection as even required by an IEC standard. A USB
interface chip datasheet demonstrates that standard:
http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX3349EA.pdf
..
w_ is either stupid or dishonest (probably both). Read the data sheet.
The 15,000V is for ESD protection - Electrostatic Discharge. As in
shuffle across the rug and touch the wire. The source resistance is
very high -1 megohm - and current is very limited - 15mA, and short
period. The IC does not "see" 15,000V.

This has no similarity to what the IC would "see" from a surge.

15,000V can arc across about 3/4"9.
..
Requested were sources for protection inside every appliance.
Provided are examples of industry standards that only the few
electrically knowledgeable would know.
..
Provided were vague references to standards with no name and no links
from a delusional source.
..
All appliances contain internal protection.
..
People with real world experience have challenged w_ on this. Just one
example:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....se_frm/thread/
e2275d3a21dadd68/01f94595de2e9a60?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#01f94595de2e9a60
or
http://tinyurl.com/3w4h2v

--
bud--

On Oct 3, 11:02 am, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 2, 11:20 am, bud-- wrote:

Many houses have the cable/phone entry points distant from the power
service, so a short wire connecting entry protectors to power system
ground is not possible. In that case, the IEEE guide says in the
example above "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is
to use a multiport protector."

Bud will post endlessly to avoid providing one fact.
..
w_ will post endlessly because his religious belief has been
challenged and his universe is in danger of collapsing.
..
The plug-in
manufacturer spec numbers that claim protection.
..
One of w_’s favorite lies. Spec was provided earlier in this thread
and ignored, as usual.
..
So essetial is single point earthing that one utility even provides
suggestions how to fix defective multipoint earthing:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
..
As I have previously written, there must be a *short* ‘ground’ wire
from cable and phone entry protectors to the ground at the power
service.
“Preferred” is correct. “Right” is awful. “Wrong” is, amongst other
things, a code violation.

Read the quote at the top of this post. It applies to all but the
"preferred".
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
The required religious sound byte again..

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

And still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in]
protector"?
- Why does “responsible” manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

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

--
bud--

On Oct 3, 2:27 pm, bud-- wrote:
w_ is either stupid or dishonest (probably both). Read the data sheet.
The 15,000V is for ESD protection - Electrostatic Discharge. As in
shuffle across the rug and touch the wire. The source resistance is
very high -1 megohm - and current is very limited - 15mA, and short
period. The IC does not "see" 15,000V.

And the current from a surge is also very limited inside a building
once surges are properly earthed. Of course Bud selected isolated
examples. Why were maybe nine examples provided? Plug-in protector
promoters fear an informed public. All appliances contain surge
protection. Protection that is overwhelmed if the typically
destructive surge is not earthed before entering the building.

Meanwhile Bud again forgets to include all those facts. 15 ma if
continuous. Massive amperes if the 15,000 volts is only a very short
term, microseconds transient. Bottom line remains. All appliance
contain surge protection. Protection that is effective IF the
typically destructive surge is earthed before entering a building.

Notice that Bud also posts insults and other disparaging remarks.
He is promoting myths. Attack the messenger because Bud cannot
dispute the facts.

Meanwhile, where is that plug-in manufacturer spec that even claims
surge protection. Oh. Again, the sales promoter just cannot seem to
find those spec numbers. Why? Even the plug-in manufacturer does not
claim the protection that Bud is promoting. Again, Bud still cannot
provide specs that claim protection because those specs do not exist.