bud-- wrote:
westom wrote:
Oh, would you two get a room, already?

On May 3, 2:51*am, bud-- wrote:
westom wrote:
On May 2, 8:42 am, wrote:
If plug-ins are incapable of any protection because they have no
direct earth ground, how is it that the same components used in plug-
in surge suppressors are typically used to provide surge protection
inside appliances and electronics?

* Again I answer - and you will ignore it. *Those MOV once were in
appliances. *No longer.

Bullcrap.


Bullcrap X 2. I was giving Tom the benefit of ignoring his silly
reply made months ago where his non-answer to the question was to
claim that MOVs are simply not used in appliances. I thought we were
past that, but obviously not. Of course, anyone that opens up most
modern day electronics and appliances knows they are.

And of course, Tom ignores the essential point of the question. And
that is that Tom has stated that appliances already contain surge
protection. Now, since he also claims that protection is impossible
without a direct connection to earth ground, how can that be?
Although we all know MOVs are widely used in this application, it
mattesr not a wit exactly what is used. The obvious contradiction
that Tom cannot escape is how can there be effective surge protection
inside appliances, with no earth ground?




trader4 showed in a previous thread that MOVs are widely used as
protection. *w *ignored it.

Yes indeed. Here it is again:

http://www.appliancedesign.com/CDA/A...00000000271505

Metal Oxide Varistors (MOVs) are typically used for transient over-
voltage suppression in AC line voltage applications. Lightning,
inductive load switching, or capacitor bank switching may cause
transient over-voltage conditions. In these applications, there also
exists the potential for a sustained abnormal over-voltage/limited-
current condition that may cause the MOV to go into thermal runaway,
resulting in overheating, out-gassing and possibly fire.

New thermally enhanced MOVs help protect a wide variety of low-power
systems against damage caused by over-current, over-temperature and
over-voltage faults, including lightning strikes, electrostatic
discharge (ESD) surges, loss of neutral, incorrect input voltage and
power induction.

These devices help provide protection in a wide range of AC line
applications, including AC mains LED lighting systems, PLC network
adapters, cell-phone chargers, AC/DC power supplies (up to 30 VA as
input power for 230 VAC input voltage), modem power supplies, AC panel
protection modules, AC power meters, and home appliances.


Here's another one, where a patent application discusses issues
associated with UL testing procedures on appliances that contain MOVs.


http://www.freshpatents.com/External...0080261419.php

BACKGROUND
As with many consumer products electrical appliances are subject to
rules, regulations, and laws which attempt to ensure product quality
and user safety. For example, UL 858 is a set of safety standards
which apply to electrically operated household cooking appliances such
as cooktops, ovens, stoves, ranges, etc. According to UL 858, a
household cooking appliance must pass a high potential voltage test
prior to being sold to a consumer. The high potential voltage test has
to be conducted after the household cooking appliance is fully
assembled. Unfortunately, implementing the high potential test can be
problematic because many cooking appliances include electrical
components which are designed to prevent voltages which fall in the
range of the test.

For example, many modern cooking appliances include one or more metal
oxide varistors (MOVs) on their power supplies to suppress high
voltage transients which can occur during power surges, lightning
storms, etc. To protect the cooking appliance and its user, the MOVs
prevent high input voltages such as those in the range of the required
high potential test. Cooking appliance manufacturers address this
problem by disconnecting the MOVs from a constant earth ground to
which the rest of the cooking appliance is connected. Without the
constant earth ground, the MOVs are able to float such that an
apparent voltage differential caused by the high potential input is
minimal. In traditional cooking appliances, connecting and/or
disconnecting the MOVs to the electrical ground requires that the
cooking appliance be disassembled




As an example, a GFCI outlet I recently took apart had an MOV for
protection. It connected only L-N.

Still not answered - how do the MOVs that ARE in equipment provide
protection when they do not have a good earth ground and "no earth
ground means no effective protection".

And still not answered - trader4's question "how is it that aircraft are
protected from surges from nearby lightning or direct strikes"?

Well, at least he just ignored that one instead of spewing total
nonsense.



* MOV is a diverting device.

MOVs are a clamping device. All they do is limit the voltage across
their terminals.

*It does not stop and absorb energy as
bud claims.

Because the village idiot is unable to understand the simple explanation
of how plug-in suppressors work that is in the IEEE guide

and because the village idiot can't understand the explanation in a
Martzloff technical paper, which I summarized

the village idiot thinks plug-in suppressors work by stopping and absorbing.

We traced an MOV earthed a surge destructively through a
network of powered off computers.

You were not smart enough to RTFM. What a surprise.


The fact that Tom says MOVs are not used in appliances lays to rest
his claims about tracing much of anything. Anyone who has done any
tracing, repair, etc surely knows what an MOV looks like and that they
are common in modern appliances and electronics.





* Numerous sources say the same thing. *MOVs protectors are not
effective when disconnected from protection

Numerous sources say the same thing - plug-in suppressors are effective.
The IEEE.
The NIST.
Martzloff in numerous technical papers.
Almost all of *w's "responsible companies".

Here, for anyone just joining us, is what one of those responsible
companies, Siemens, has to say about plug-in surge protectors.
Siemens is probably the largest manufacturer in the world of every
kind of electric equipment, from dishwashers, to telecom, to the
largest power plant equipment:

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

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




Where is *any* source that says plug-in suppressors do NOT work? There
are none.
There is just *w and his religious belief in earthing.

* As the NIST says

The NIST says:
Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.

* Only ineffective protectors make that ‘stop and absorb’ claim

Only *w makes a "stop and absorb" claim.

So that protection inside every
appliance is not overwhelmed.

Still missing - a source that say protection is "inside every appliance".
And missing - an explanation of the protection.

No earth ground means no effective
A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground

And the religious mantras that protect poor *w from reality.

Surprise - surprise - still no source that agrees with *w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

And still no answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says *"electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

Why can't you answer simple questions *w???

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

--
bud--

On May 3, 3:00 am, bud-- wrote:
w is insulted by the IEEE and NIST guides.

IEEE's Page 42 Figure 8 - bud's surge protector earths a surge 8000
volts destructively through the adjacent TV. bud routinely denies
what even his own citation says. Also ignores 'scary pictures' - a
fire threat that most every fire department has seen.

Every bud citation says what is necessary to have an effective
protector. Earth ground. Also provided were quotes from a long list
of responsible people and companies that say the same thing -
including Southwest Bell, Sun Microsystems, US Air Force, and the
Lightning Safety Institute.

And again, bud forgets to provide numeric specs. He cannot post
protection. No plug-in protector manufacturer claims that
protection. bud knows that posting nasty insults will get others to
forget reality - spend $25 or $150 for a $3 power strip with some ten
cent parts. Scams are bud.

Meanwhile, telcos all over the world waste no money on what bud
sells. When damage cannot happen, in every case, 'whole house'
protectors are earthed. Power strip protectors are banned (see
'scary pictures' to appreciate why). A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground - as every bud citation even says. Page
42 Figure 8 - the protector earths a surge 8000 volts destructively
through the TV. bud pretends IEEE's Page 42 Figure 8 does not exist.
Otherwise profits would be threatened. If he posts more nasty
insults, you might forget Page 42 Figure 8 - why telcos don't waste
money on power strip protectors.

bud will keep posting nasty insults. It works to protect the scam –
selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for $25 or $150.

On May 3, 9:42 am, wrote:
Bullcrap X 2.
http://www.appliancedesign.com/CDA/A.../BNP_GUID_9-5-...

Since MOVs inside appliances are so effective, then why spend $25 or
$150 for power strip protectors? According to trader, all appliances
are completely protected. Anything that a power strip would do is
already inside every appliance. Why waste $25 or $150 when it already
exists inside the appliance?

Reality: internal protection has long been required in all
appliances - routine even without MOVs. If a power strip protector
did anything effective, those ten cent MOVs inside every appliance
means complete protection. Why spend an additional $25 or $150 per
appliance to enrich bud? Why spend massively on a magic strip that
does not even claim protection in its numeric specs? trader says no
appliance needs power strip protectors because that protection is
already inside every appliance.

So that protection inside every appliance is not overwhelmed, earth
(divert, connect, bond, shunt) a destructive surge before it can enter
the building. That means $1 per protected appliance for one 'whole
house' protector. Spend massively less for solution used everywhere
that damage cannot happen. That solution means every two wire and
three wire circuit has the best protection. That means no power strip
protectors that also create 'scary pictures' (house fires). trader
can only agree. trader says anything that a power strip protector
might do is already inside all appliances.

OP asked about protecting appliances on two wire circuits. Two wire
circuit mean three wire power strip protectors cannot be used - would
violate safety standards. bud forgets to mention that. It would
harm his profits. trader says anything that a power strip would
accomplish is already inside every appliance. Every responsible
technical source says a protector can only divert surges - that energy
harmlessly absorbed in earth.

So that protection already inside every appliance is not
overwhelmed, simply upgrade earthing (ie 'less than 10 feet', no sharp
bends, separated from other wires, etc) and install one 'whole house'
protector. A device selling in Lowes for less than $50. Now every
two wire and three wire circuit has the best protection. Has
protection also required everywhere damage cannot happen (ie every
telco CO everywhere in the world). How do telcos connected to
overhead wires all over town not suffer damage? They waste no money
on bud's products AND they earth 'whole house' protectors.

N8N asked how to determine if earthing was properly installed.
Those who promote myths and post insults could not bother to answer
N8N. bud would have him us three wire power strips on two wire
circuits - a safety threat. N8N should install a new post 1990
earthing system if his earthing cannot be visually inspected. If
using two wire circuits, then existing earthing was probably
insufficient anyway - would not meet post 1990 code requirements.

Any protection inside an appliance maybe overwhelmed by the
typically destructive surge. Earth that surge (one 'whole house'
protector) so that protection inside every appliance remains intact -
is not overwhelmed. A solution that even sells in Lowes for less
than $50. A solution that probably requires N8N to upgrade his
earthing. A solution that costs tens or 100 times less money than
what bud promotes. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground - as was well understood even 100 years ago.

On Apr 30, 6:57 pm, wrote:
I imagine Tom is still flogging his PolyPhaser product if you followed
all his links.

And General Electric, Square D, Keison, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer,
Siemens, ... and maybe another 50 responsible manufacturers whose
products put money into protection - not profits.

Whose protectors will earth direct lightning strikes and remain
functional. 'Scary pictures' are found on protectors that claim
protection in numeric specs? Oh. Those power strip protectors never
once claim any protection? What happens when they magically absorb
surges?
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/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/les...tectorfire.htm

What happens to all energy if not harmlessly absorbed by earth? A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Polyphaser is only
one in a long list of honest companies that hire engineers. Insults
not required to protect their profit margins. Meanwhile, the OP's
questions are about earthing. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

He has two wire circuits. Why do plug-in promoters promote
protectors that cannot be used on two wire circuit - a safety threat?
Oh. When profits are at risk, then honestly no longer matters. How
curious. What General Electric, Leviton, etc recommend is the only
and best solution he has. Upgrade breaker box earthing and install
one 'whole house' protector. Then everything (even the dishwasher) is
protected.

On May 3, 4:02 pm, westom wrote:
On May 3, 9:42 am, wrote:

Bullcrap X 2.
http://www.appliancedesign.com/CDA/A.../BNP_GUID_9-5-...

Since MOVs inside appliances are so effective, then why spend $25 or
$150 for power strip protectors? According to trader, all appliances
are completely protected. Anything that a power strip would do is
already inside every appliance. Why waste $25 or $150 when it already
exists inside the appliance?

OMG! You are soooo confused dude. YOU are the one that claimed
that all appliances and electronics already had surge protection which
negated the need for plug-ins.




Reality: internal protection has long been required in all
appliances - routine even without MOVs. If a power strip protector
did anything effective, those ten cent MOVs inside every appliance
means complete protection.

Now you're contradicting yourself again. A few posts back, you
claimed appliances didn't have MOVs. And you continue to ignore the
15 ft elephant in the room. Which is regardless of exactly how surge
protection inside an appliance is accomplished, how is that possible
given your continued position that surge protection is impossible
without a direct earth ground? Only way for that to be possible is
for all these appliances to come with their own built-in earth ground.



Why spend an additional $25 or $150 per
appliance to enrich bud? Why spend massively on a magic strip that
does not even claim protection in its numeric specs? trader says no
appliance needs power strip protectors because that protection is
already inside every appliance.

No Tom, anyone who has been following your regular rants knows it was
YOU who made that claim, not I. But let me answer your question.
Personally, I'd rather have a surge dealt with by the MOVs inside the
$20 plug-in surge protector, rather than rely on the MOVs inside the
$2000 TV. Their capacity is not unlimited and they are known to
sometimes fail. I'd rather replace a $20 surge protector than have
someone dig into the guts of my $2000 TV that stopped working. How
about you?




So that protection inside every appliance is not overwhelmed, earth
(divert, connect, bond, shunt) a destructive surge before it can enter
the building. That means $1 per protected appliance for one 'whole
house' protector. Spend massively less for solution used everywhere
that damage cannot happen. That solution means every two wire and
three wire circuit has the best protection. That means no power strip
protectors that also create 'scary pictures' (house fires). trader
can only agree. trader says anything that a power strip protector
might do is already inside all appliances.

Only Tom says that plug-ins offer no protection or actually cause
damage. Everyone else, which would include the IEEE, NIST, major
electrical equipment manufacturers, eg Siemens, say they do work and
should be used as part of a surge protection plan.



OP asked about protecting appliances on two wire circuits.

You are as confused about this as everything else. The OP never asked
about protecting appliances or anything else. He just asked about how
to ground outlets that were on a 2 wire circuit above a slab.



Two wire
circuit mean three wire power strip protectors cannot be used - would
violate safety standards. bud forgets to mention that. It would
harm his profits. trader says anything that a power strip would
accomplish is already inside every appliance.

Again, I never said any such thing. I SAID THAT YOU SAID IT, which
of course you did many times in various threads.

Every responsible
technical source says a protector can only divert surges - that energy
harmlessly absorbed in earth.

So that protection already inside every appliance is not
overwhelmed, simply upgrade earthing (ie 'less than 10 feet', no sharp
bends, separated from other wires, etc) and install one 'whole house'
protector. A device selling in Lowes for less than $50. Now every
two wire and three wire circuit has the best protection. Has
protection also required everywhere damage cannot happen (ie every
telco CO everywhere in the world). How do telcos connected to
overhead wires all over town not suffer damage? They waste no money
on bud's products AND they earth 'whole house' protectors.

Since you dragged Telecom into it again, please read the reference I
provided from Siemens, which you chose to ignore. In addition to
making all kinds of surge protection products, including the whole
house type, they are a major telecom manufacturer. And they also build
everything from appliances to power plant equipment They clearly say
that plug-in protectors can and should be used as part of a surge
protection plan.




N8N asked how to determine if earthing was properly installed.
Those who promote myths and post insults could not bother to answer
N8N. bud would have him us three wire power strips on two wire
circuits - a safety threat. N8N should install a new post 1990
earthing system if his earthing cannot be visually inspected. If
using two wire circuits, then existing earthing was probably
insufficient anyway - would not meet post 1990 code requirements.

Any protection inside an appliance maybe overwhelmed by the
typically destructive surge. Earth that surge (one 'whole house'
protector) so that protection inside every appliance remains intact -
is not overwhelmed. A solution that even sells in Lowes for less
than $50. A solution that probably requires N8N to upgrade his
earthing. A solution that costs tens or 100 times less money than
what bud promotes. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground - as was well understood even 100 years ago.

So, once again, some simple questions:

1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.

2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?

3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?

On May 3, 7:16 pm, wrote:
OMG! You are soooo confused dude. YOU are the one that claimed
that all appliances and electronics already had surge protection which
negated the need for plug-ins.

Are you so technically ignorant as to use silly emotion for your
reasoning? Constantly posted was this: all appliances contain surge
protection. That means surge protection without MOVs. With basic
design knowledge, you know how that is routinely done.

You claim all appliances contain MOVs. Fine. Then no plug-in
protectors are required to only do the same thing. Why waste so much
money on $25 or $150 surge protectors when the same ten cent parts are
already inside appliances? trader still will not answer that.

Back to reality. All appliances contain protection (with or without
MOVs). Protection that makes most every surge irrelevant. Protection
that is overwhelmed by a rare and destructive surge.

How does every telco everywhere in the world operate during every
thunderstorm and never suffer computer damage? Same solution is
routinely used in homes that contain transistors. Earth that rare and
destructive surge before it can enter the building. One properly
earthed 'whole house' protector with a short connection to single
point earth ground. A concept that has been successful for over 100
years. Then protection inside every appliance (with or without MOVs)
is not overwhelmed.

Only repeating what trader has read repeatedly. How many other
professionals have been quoted saying the same thing? And still
trader knows it must not be true? Facts he forgets to post more
attacks - and still not answer questions involving two wire circuits.

Why did so many appliance manufacturers stop installing MOVs? The
rare and typically destructive surge overwhelmed internal appliance
protection with or without MOVs installed.

'Whole house' protectors are not completely effective. The naive
and trader will read no farther. Reposting what trader had read
befo from an IEEE Standard:
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 ...

We spend $50 for a 'whole house' protector from Lowes to have 99.5%
protection (assuming earthing exists and is properly connected).
trader says we should spend $5000 for plug-in protectors for each
appliance to have an additional 'less than' $0.5% protection.

Fine. trader knows plug-in protectors are required because he wants
99.7% protection. Let him enrich bud.

Meanwhile trader's posts remain irrelevant to what others ask. They
have two wire circuits. trader recommends safety violations - use
three wire power strips on two wire circuits. How does the OP get any
protection from surge protectors when receptacles are only two wires?
Facts that trader ignored to post irrelevance.

They asked for a solution to two wire circuits? Where does trader
post even one solution? He has no solutions.

Anyone with two wire receptacles can have 99.5% protection by
ignoring the naysayers. Install one 'whole house' protector and
upgrade earthing ('less than 10 feet, no sharp bends, etc). That
means everything (including the furnace and dishwasher) is protected.
Where is that trader post that describes any protection on two wire
circuits? Nothing. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground which is why others also recommended upgrading building earth
ground.

westom wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:57 pm, wrote:
I imagine Tom is still flogging his PolyPhaser product if you followed
all his links.

And General Electric, Square D, Keison, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer,
Siemens, ... and maybe another 50 responsible manufacturers whose
products put money into protection - not profits.

All of those manufacturers say plug-in suppressors are effective.

What happens when they magically absorb
surges?
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

The lie repeated.
No source say there is a problem with UL listed suppressors that have
been made since 1998.
No source even says a damaged suppressor was UL listed.

Meanwhile, the OP's
questions are about earthing.

The OP's questions are about adding a ground for outlets.

A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

w only understands sound bites.

Still missing - a source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.

Still never answered - simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

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

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On May 3, 7:16 pm, wrote:
OMG! You are soooo confused dude. YOU are the one that claimed
that all appliances and electronics already had surge protection which
negated the need for plug-ins.

Great responses trader.


Are you so technically ignorant as to use silly emotion for your
reasoning?

Are you so technically ignorant as to use religious belief for your
reasoning?

Constantly posted was this: all appliances contain surge
protection.

Never posted was anyone who agreed with w that "all appliances contain
surge protection".

Posted in other newsgroups - a lot of equipment has *no* surge protection.

That means surge protection without MOVs.

Proved false by trader.

You claim all appliances contain MOVs.

w is so confused.
trader said *some* appliances have MOVs.

All appliances contain protection (with or without
MOVs).

Apparently it is another matter of religious belief.

One properly
earthed 'whole house' protector with a short connection to single
point earth ground.

Repeating from the NIST guide:
"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."

Only repeating what trader has read repeatedly.

Only repeating what w has read (and ignored) repeatedly.

Meanwhile trader's posts remain irrelevant to what others ask. They
have two wire circuits. trader recommends safety violations - use
three wire power strips on two wire circuits.

As trader said "You are as confused about this as everything else. The
OP never asked about protecting appliances or anything else. He just
asked about how to ground outlets that were on a 2 wire circuit above a
slab."

They asked for a solution to two wire circuits?

Nope. Nobody asked that.

A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground

Religious belief can be so debilitating..

Still missing - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

And (with some overlap):
1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.
2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?
3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?

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

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On May 3, 3:00 am, bud-- wrote:
w is insulted by the IEEE and NIST guides.

IEEE's Page 42 Figure 8 - bud's surge protector earths a surge 8000
volts destructively through the adjacent TV.

The lie repeated.

Every bud citation says what is necessary to have an effective
protector. Earth ground.

What does every citation say? Plug-in suppressors are effective.

Also provided were quotes

What does NONE of the quotes say? None agree with w that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

And again, bud forgets to provide numeric specs.

The lie repeated.

Power strip protectors are banned

By who???
w 'forgets' to say.

A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground

Ho-hum - the religious mantra.

Still never seen - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

And (with some overlap):
1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.
2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?
3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?

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

--
bud--

On May 4, 1:28*am, bud-- wrote:
What does every citation say? *Plug-in suppressors are effective.

Effective for what? Enriching you as long as you continue promoting
myths? From your own citation:
The best surge protection in the world can be
useless if grounding is not done properly.

By your own admission, plug-in protectors do not have a dedicated and
short (ie less than 10 foot).connection to earth. Effective at what?
Effective at protecting from a type of surge that is typically not
destructive? Yes. It protects from the surge it is designed to
protect from - the type that iws typically not destructive.

bud will post endlessly to avoid the bottom line. His protectors do
not even claim to protect from a typically destructive surges. Can
even contribute to appliance damage if a 'whole house' protector is
not installed. bud refuses to provide even one spec that claims
protection. Not even one plug-in protector manufacturer will make
that claim.

Telcos, that must never suffer damage, do not waste money on bud's
plug-in protectors. Why waste money on ineffective protection -
especially when specs do not even claim that protection?

And then the scary pictures unique to plug-in protectors. What
happens to all that energy if not diverted harmlessly in earth? bud
says that energy magically disappears. Even Martzloff says
objectionable difference in reference voltages occur when or perhaps
because surge protective devices are present at the point of
connection of appliances.

And still bud incessantly posts his myths - insisting that
protection effective. Why do high reliability facilities instead use
earthing and 'whole house' protectors? They do what IEEE and NIST
state. Surge energy must be dissipated somewhere. The best protector
in the world can be useless if not earthed like a plug-in protector.
Meanwhile bud still refuses to post even one plug-in protector spec -
for good reason. Without earthing, that silly little ten cent part in
plug-in protectors must stop and absorb what three miles of sky could
not stop. No earth ground means no effective protection. A protector
is only as effective as its earth ground - where surge energy must be
harmlessly diverted - as both IEEE and NIST state.

On May 3, 10:30*pm, westom wrote:
On May 3, 7:16 pm, wrote:

OMG! * You are soooo confused dude. * YOU are the one that claimed
that all appliances and electronics already had surge protection which
negated the need for plug-ins.

*Are you so technically ignorant as to use silly emotion for your
reasoning? *Constantly posted was this: all appliances contain surge
protection. *That means surge protection without MOVs.

Yet another outstanding non-sequitor. Your logic process is most
amazing.

*With basic
design knowledge, you know how that is routinely done.

I know it's commonly done with MOVs. You tell us how to do it as
well and cost effectively in appliances and electronics without using
them.



* You claim all appliances contain MOVs. *Fine. *

I never stated that all appliances contain MOVs. Only that they are
commonly found in many modern ones, which would be ones that have
electronic controls. Obviously there are appliances in existence
that have no surge protection at all, like a toaster or an old washer,
for example.




Then no plug-in
protectors are required to only do the same thing. * Why waste so much
money on $25 or $150 surge protectors when the same ten cent parts are
already inside appliances? * trader still will not answer that.

I have answered it many times, as has the IEEE, NIST, etc. Bud has
provided you with the references. BTW, where are your references that
simply state what you say, which is that plug-ins are totally
ineffective and actually cause damage?

But let me answer it for you one more time. I would rather have a
surge be dealt with in whole or in part, by the MOVs inside a $25 plug-
in surge protector than the MOVs inside the $2000 TV. These
components don't have an unlimited capacity, nor do they last
forever. It's not unusual for an MOV to be destroyed at some point
by a surge. Plus, I can choose the capacity of the surge protector
in the plug-in, and typically it's capacity is going to be greater
than what is inside an appliance. Also, by connecting say a TV,
VCR, DVR, and Stereo all to the same plug-in surge protector, all
their inputs subject to surges, ie AC, Cable, phone are now clamped to
the same level.




* Back to reality. *All appliances contain protection (with or without
MOVs). *Protection that makes most every surge irrelevant. *Protection
that is overwhelmed by a rare and destructive surge.

* How does every telco everywhere in the world operate during every
thunderstorm and never suffer computer damage? * Same solution is
routinely used in homes that contain transistors. *

Once again you want to take a trip down memory lane, but leave out the
important parts. You made this telco claim before. And I pointed
out that telcos also rely on a tiered surge protection approach. Not
only do they have surge protection at the entry point, they also have
surge protection on the actual line cards in the central office
switch, where the phone line terminates. Protection that according
to you is useless because there is no direct short connection to earth
ground. The components on that line card work the same way, and
under the same limitations as those in a plug-in surge protector.




Earth that rare and
destructive surge before it can enter the building. *One properly
earthed 'whole house' protector with a short connection to single
point earth ground. *A concept that has been successful for over 100
years. *Then protection inside every appliance (with or without MOVs)
is not overwhelmed.

* Only repeating what trader has read repeatedly. How many other
professionals have been quoted saying the same thing?

Bud and I as well as anyone else I can recall here have repeated what
the IEEE and NIST say, which is that plug-in protectors do work and
should be used as part of a surge protection plan. What we have yet
to see, is any professional simply stating what you say, which is that
plug-in are totally ineffective and actually cause damage. Where is
that missing link?


*And still
trader knows it must not be true? * Facts he forgets to post more
attacks - and still not answer questions involving two wire circuits.

* Why did so many appliance manufacturers stop installing MOVs? *The
rare and typically destructive surge overwhelmed internal appliance
protection with or without MOVs installed.

I just provided you with a link to a recent Appliance Design Magazine,
where they have a whole article that talks about MOVs being used in
appliances. Now, who are we to believe? My own eyes and credible
references, or you? BTW, where's your reference for the claim that
so many appliance manufacturers stopped using MOVs?

For those just joining us, here is the link again:

http://www.appliancedesign.com/CDA/A.../BNP_GUID_9-5-...

"Metal Oxide Varistors (MOVs) are typically used for transient over-
voltage suppression in AC line voltage applications. Lightning,
inductive load switching, or capacitor bank switching may cause
transient over-voltage conditions. In these applications, there also
exists the potential for a sustained abnormal over-voltage/limited-
current condition that may cause the MOV to go into thermal runaway,
resulting in overheating, out-gassing and possibly fire.
New thermally enhanced MOVs help protect a wide variety of low-power
systems against damage caused by over-current, over-temperature and
over-voltage faults, including lightning strikes, electrostatic
discharge (ESD) surges, loss of neutral, incorrect input voltage and
power induction.
These devices help provide protection in a wide range of AC line
applications, including AC mains LED lighting systems, PLC network
adapters, cell-phone chargers, AC/DC power supplies (up to 30 VA as
input power for 230 VAC input voltage), modem power supplies, AC
panel
protection modules, AC power meters, and home appliances. "



* 'Whole house' protectors are not completely effective. *The naive
and trader will read no farther. *Reposting what trader had read
befo from an IEEE Standard:

I don't know what your point is here. But I never posted any such
thing, though it is obviously a true statement that whole house surge
protectors are not completely effective. But they can be an
important part of an overall protection plan, just as plug-ins can be
part of that same plan..


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 ...

I'm beginning to think maybe you've had a stroke.




* *We spend $50 for a 'whole house' protector from Lowes to have 99.5%
protection (assuming earthing exists and is properly connected).
trader says we should spend $5000 for plug-in protectors for each
appliance to have an additional 'less than' $0.5% protection.

Another bizarre and false assertion. I never said any such thing.
You can buy a decent plug-in surge protector for $25.




* Fine. *trader knows plug-in protectors are required because he wants
99.7% protection. * Let him enrich bud.

And here we go again, claiming Bud sells plug-in surge protectors.
Your basis for this would be?




* Meanwhile trader's posts remain irrelevant to what others ask. *They
have two wire circuits. *trader recommends safety violations - use
three wire power strips on two wire circuits.

And yet another outrageous lie. The OP asked how to add ground wires
to 2 wire circuits on a slab. I never told the OP ANYTHING about
using power strips.



*How does the OP get any
protection from surge protectors when receptacles are only two wires?
Facts that trader ignored to post irrelevance.
* They asked for a solution to two wire circuits? *Where does trader
post even one solution? *He has no solutions.

Once again, despite your attempts to turn the OPs question into your
own area of specialty delusion, the OP never asked about surge
protection. For all we know, he has 3 outlets that are 2 wire that
are used to occasionally plug a vacuum or a hand held tool into. Last
time I checked there are very valid reasons for having grounded
outlets that have nothing at all to do with surge protection.



* Anyone with two wire receptacles can have 99.5% protection by
ignoring the naysayers. *Install one 'whole house' protector and
upgrade earthing ('less than 10 feet, no sharp bends, etc). *That
means everything (including the furnace and dishwasher) is protected.
Where is that trader post that describes any protection on two wire
circuits? *Nothing. *A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground which is why others also recommended upgrading building earth
ground.

Where is Tom's post that answers the OP's actual question, which is
how to add a ground wire to 2 wire circuits on a slab?

westom wrote:
On May 4, 1:28 am, bud-- wrote:
What does every citation say? Plug-in suppressors are effective.

A protector
is only as effective as its earth ground

The religious mantra that protects w from thinking.

Plus the usual lies (w is a fan of Josef Goebbels).

Plus the usual mischaracterization of what sources say about plug-in
suppressors.

And as always - no one who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do
NOT work. Why doesn't anyone agree with you w???

And no answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

And (with some overlap):
1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.
2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?
3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?

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

--
bud--

On May 4, 8:06*am, wrote:
I have answered it many times, as has the IEEE, NIST, etc. *Bud has
provided you with the references. *BTW, where are your references that
simply state what you say, which is that plug-ins are totally
ineffective and actually cause damage?

But let me answer it for you one more time. * I would rather have a
surge be dealt with in whole or in part, by the MOVs inside a $25 plug-
in surge protector than the MOVs inside the $2000 TV. * These
components don't have an unlimited capacity, nor do they last
forever.

Apparently you don't read what professionals have been doing for 100
years. MOVs are installed at the service entrance so that protection
inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. So that rumored MOVs inside
TVs will last for decades. You would plug-in a $25 protector that
also sells in Circuit City for $150 on a two wire circuit? Or did you
forget what the topic is here?

You would spend $25 or $150 to protect only one TV when the
effective (earthed) protector actually does protection for about $1
per appliance? And the effective solution provides protection for
two wire receptacle circuits. BTW, the equivalent $25 protector sells
in a grocery store for $7 - also at a profit. You would encourage the
scam?

Unlike bud and you, I did this stuff to protect equipment that must
never suffer damage. Direct lightning strikes suffered without any
damage because we learned how surge protection really works. We never
wasted any money on plug-in protectors. We had a budget and we needed
protectors that actually do work. So we spent tens and 100 times less
money for the well proven and superior solution.

bud's IEEE and NIST citations say why his plug-in protector
contributes to appliance damage. Page 42 Figure 8 is but one example.
'Scary pictures' are other common problems from your $25 plug-in
protector. Apparently you cannot read? Because IEEE Standards also
define why that damage happens as also defined in bud's citation -
Page 42 Figure 8.

MOVs divert surges to earth. MOVs do not stop or absorb surges as
bud claims and you still believe. MOVs do not stop what three miles
of sky could not. MOVs are connecting devices to earth ground. No
earth ground means no effective protection. bud's citations say that
- say why plug-in protectors are not use in facilities that can never
suffer surge damage.

Your what appliance design magazine is discussing a new type of MOV
- does not discuss what makes that MOV effective. Do MOVs (even this
new type) absorb hundreds of thousand of joules as bud also claims?
Does that silly little 2 cm part stop what three miles of sky could
not? Of course not. Either it connects that surge short to earth
ground OR it may earth those thousands of joules destructively through
adjacent appliances as even Martzloff says in his 1994 IEEE paper AND
as we engineers saw to a network of powered off computers.

Where is that plug-in protector spec that claims any protection?
You would even recommend three wire protection on two wire AC branch
circuits? It claims no effective protection. And you are even
recommending a safety violation.

Best solution for any household surge protection is also the only
solution for the OP and others with two wire electric receptacles. A
solution that sells in Lowes for less than $50. A protector is only
as effective as its earth ground.

On May 4, 10:52*am, bud-- wrote:
The religious mantra that protects *w from thinking.
Plus the usual lies (w *is a fan of Josef Goebbels).

What any sales promoter would do? Lie. Insult. Even his own
citations - the best he can come up with - show plug-in protector
cause damage due to no earthing. Norma on 27 Dec 2008 in
alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage" also describes the danger of
power strip protectors:
Today, the cable company came to replace a wire. Well the cable
man pulled a wire and somehow yanked loose their "ground" wire.
The granddaughter on the computer yelled and ran because sparks
and smoke were coming from the power surge strip.

bud called Norma a liar. And still no numeric spec that even says he
protectors work.

Funny he should meantion Josef Goebbels. Only a Nazi bud would
intentional harm others; recommend protectors on two wire circuits - a
safety violation. And still he never once answers the OP's questions.
His objective is to turn this discussion nasty so that you will not
realize his scam.

Still cannot provide even one spec that says a plug-in protector does
anything. Of course. It does not claim protection from a typically
destuctive surge. It even spit sparks and smoke when the cable was
temporarily disconnected. Or those 'scary pictures' - the fire threat
is too common with plug-in protectors. But it does effectively create
profits. Posting insults is bud's job - to keep you ignorant; to keep
you buying their scam.

Of course, bud will reply. Sales promoter will constantly repost
same half truths and lies. bud will do anything to get the last
post. Profits are at risk.

On May 4, 1:23 am, bud-- wrote:
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Page 42 Figure 8 - a plug-in protector doing the only thing it can
do. Earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV.
So where is that plug-in spec that claims protection? No plug-in
protector - not one - will claim that protection. bud will post
anything to avoid that reality.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why
telcos all over the world waste no money on bud's products. Which
explains why the US Air Force wants their protectors as close to earth
ground as it practicable. Which is why Sun Microsystems recommends
earthed protectors - not plug-in protectors.

Even Norma saw the fire threat from plug-in protectors. So bud
called her a liar:
Today, the cable company came to replace a wire. Well the cable
man pulled a wire and somehow yanked loose their "ground" wire.
The granddaughter on the computer yelled and ran because sparks
and smoke were coming from the power surge strip.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Where is that
plug-in protector spec that claims protection? Nobody in the world
has found even one. bud whose job it to promote this scam cannot even
find one spec. Of course. No earth ground means no effective
protection. But it sure can fail.

bud will reply incessantly. If he gets the last post, then he has
again protected his scam. He even recommends connecting three wire
protectors on two wire circuits. The OPs questions were never
relevant to him. bud fears you might learn what engineers have long
understood about his products.

On May 4, 2:50*pm, wrote:
The small transients induced in the house can be absorbed by the
MOV in a point of user protector but they are stopped by the
choke they should have until the MOV can convert them to heat.
The choke is what makes a good protector heavy. You are
heating up a big chunk of iron too.

The choke 'slows' a transient, as explained in varistor application
notes (Harris Semiconductor?), so that a larger surge current (not
voltage) does not harm MOVs. Application notes demonstrate using an
inductor (choke) when fewer joules are used. But a better solution
was to increase those joules - more MOVs. Increased joules (more
MOVs) absorb less energy and divert more energy into earth. More
joules or using a choke to protect MOVs are two designer choices.

Separation between a protector and electronics does same. Longer
wire (ie romex inside walls) means increased impedance. Increased
impedance between protector and electronics means more surge current
will use a shorter path to earth. Romex with its many sharp bends,
splices, etc increases protection by further obstructing surge
current. Wire impedance is why telcos want their earthed protectors
up to 50 meters separated from switching computers.

These impedance devices (chokes, long wire, etc) are engineering
tricks to supplement protection provided by earthing a surge. A
'supplement trick' is completely ineffective by itself. But
supplemental solutions enhance protection if using the critical
earthing system.

Impedance will not stop surges like a dam. But impedance operates
like a dike as long as the surge has a non-destructive downstream
path. In surge protection, that downstream path is a 'whole house'
protector connected short to the best earthing available - the single
point earth ground..

Impedance in a two wire AC branch circuit will increase appliance
protection only if a 'whole house' protector is properly earthed.
Surge protection means increasing impedance to the appliance and
decreasing impedance to earth through a 'whole house' protector.

On May 5, 1:19*pm, bud-- wrote:
I agree that service panel suppressors are a real good idea.
Particularly in high lightning areas, like yours, they should be used.
And I agree that you can have small transients with a service panel
suppressor and short connections of phone and cable entry protectors to
the ground at the power service.
I see nothing in either the IEEE or NIST guides that says plug-in
suppressors are not effective when used alone ...

Page 42 Figure 8 explains what happens when a plug-in protector is
used without a 'whole house' protector and essential earthing. A
surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV -
Page 42 Figure 8. That is effective protection?

Engineers saw same failures when power strip protectors earthed
surges destructively through a network of powered off computers.
Martzloff says same in his 1994 IEEE paper. No wonder telcos, Sun
Microsystems server centers, and the US Air Force install 'whole
house' protectors on all incoming wires. And don't waste money on
obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors.

A $7 grocery store protector selling for a profit is the same
protection circuit promoted by bud for $25 or $150. bud forgets to
mention those profit margins. Ever wonder why?

A power strip protector without earthing a 'whole house' protector
can even contribute to appliance damage. No wonder a power strip
protector specification is never provided. No spec when not even one
plug-in protector claims that protection.

Facilities that cannot suffer damage routinely earth 'whole house'
protectors. Essential so that a plug-in protector need not create
appliance damage by earthing that surge through adjacent appliances.

westom wrote:
On May 5, 1:19 pm, bud-- wrote:
I agree that service panel suppressors are a real good idea.
Particularly in high lightning areas, like yours, they should be used.
And I agree that you can have small transients with a service panel
suppressor and short connections of phone and cable entry protectors to
the ground at the power service.
I see nothing in either the IEEE or NIST guides that says plug-in
suppressors are not effective when used alone ...

A
surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV

The lie repeated. The suppressor that protects TV1 does no damage to TV2.

Still missing - anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT
work.

Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

And (with some overlap):
1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.
2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?
3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?

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

--
bud--

On May 6, 10:13 am, bud-- wrote:
westom wrote:
On May 5, 1:19 pm, bud-- wrote:
I agree that service panel suppressors are a real good idea.
Particularly in high lightning areas, like yours, they should be used.
And I agree that you can have small transients with a service panel
suppressor and short connections of phone and cable entry protectors to
the ground at the power service.
I see nothing in either the IEEE or NIST guides that says plug-in
suppressors are not effective when used alone ...

A
surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV

The lie repeated. The suppressor that protects TV1 does no damage to TV2.


This is a perfect example of how Tom takes anything and everything out
of context and turns it into an outright lie. Here is what the text
associated with figure 8 actually says. Pay special attention to the
last sentence:

"Figure 8: Ground potential differences within a building under
lightning strike
conditions: how down-line TV sets get damaged. With a 3,000A surge
rising in 3 ìs,
and a 30 foot ground bond (A-C), ~10,000 V develops between A and C.
Even with a
multi-port protector (D) for TV1, the ground voltage at D is conveyed
to TV2 by the
coaxial cable, resulting in an 8,000 V potential across TV2, which
will probably destroy
it. A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to
protect TV2"



Clearly the IEEE did not say that the damage at TV2 is CAUSED in any
way by the surge surpressor on TV1. And they clearly say that using
a plug-in surge protector on TV2 would protect it, which is 180 deg
opposite of everything that Tom says.

On May 6, 10:13*am, bud-- wrote:
The lie repeated. The suppressor that protects TV1 does no damage to TV2.

Page 42 Figure 8 - surge earthed 8000 volts destructively through the
TV because plug-in protectors are used and because 'whole house'
protector is not used. Every citation even from bud notes the
problem.

Where does bud address the OP's problem? bud even encourages three
wire protectors on two wire circuits - a safety violation.

Where is even one spec from any plug-in manufacturer that claims
surge protection? Nothing. Page 42 Figure 8 - it can even contribute
to appliance damage. No earth ground means no effective protection.
No wonder telcos everywhere in the world will not waste money on bud's
scam. No wonder bud will continue posting the same half truths and
insults. He is paid to post here - to protect profit margins. All
over the world, they use 'whole house' protectors, better earthing,
and no plug-in protectors. So bud will keep posting to protect the
myth - to get the last post. He never answers the OP's questions.
Where is even one spec that says his protectors provide protection?
Never provided because it never existed.

Plug-in protectors on two wire circuits provide no surge protection
AND create a human safety issue. An earthed 'whole house' protector
means protection for everything including every appliance on two wire
circuits.

westom wrote:
On May 6, 10:13 am, bud-- wrote:
The lie repeated. The suppressor that protects TV1 does no damage to TV2.

Page 42 Figure 8

The lie repeated, as I have said repeatedly and trader just showed.

Where does bud address the OP's problem?

w lost track of the OP's problem long ago.

The OP's problem was adding a ground wire to existing outlets.
I provided answers.
w has not.

bud even encourages three
wire protectors on two wire circuits - a safety violation.

w is hallucinating again (still?).

No earth ground means no effective protection.

The required religious mantra.

He never answers the OP's questions.

I did and w didn't.
w can't follow what happens in a thread "this complicated" and his
hallucinations take over.

Of course still never seen - anyone who agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.
Because no one in the known universe agrees with w.

Of course still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

And (with some overlap):
1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.
2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?
3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?

**********
Why aren’t *flying* planes crashing every day w??? No earth ground
means no protection.
Why can't you answer the question???
**********

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

--
bud--

On May 6, 3:22 pm, bud-- wrote:
The OP's problem was adding a ground wire to existing outlets.

The OP does not need that ground wire. Oh. I forgot. If he does
not use that ground wire, then he cannot spend tens or 100 times more
money on bud's protector. Obscene profits would be at risk. Instead
he would install what is routine when damage is not acceptable. One
'whole house' protector and upgraded earthing (which is probably
necessary anyway due to the vintage of that house) makes bud's
overpriced and ineffective protectors unnecessary.

bud is not here to help the OP. bud is the troll who follows me
everywhere to protect profit margins. bud will not even admit he is
paid to post here. He is a sales promoter whose job is to lie and
create confusion.

OPs either installs a new three wire circuit or uses a GFCI. A
properly earthed 'whole house' protector is also required to protect
that GFCI.

A GFCI means power strip protectors have no ground. Just another
reason why we install one 'whole house' protector with upgraded
earthing to protect that circuit and everything else in the house -
for tens or 100 times less money.

westom wrote:
On May 6, 3:22 pm, bud-- wrote:
The OP's problem was adding a ground wire to existing outlets.

The OP does not need that ground wire. Oh. I forgot. If he does
not use that ground wire, then he cannot spend tens or 100 times more
money on bud's protector.

w still can't figure out the thread is not about suppressors on 2 wire
circuits. It is about adding a ground wire to existing outlets.

bud is not here to help the OP.

I am a regular on this newsgroup and posted *on topic* before w found
the thread from "surge" on google-groups.

w is here, as always, to spread his religious dogma about the evils of
plug-in suppressors.

He is a sales promoter whose job is to lie and
create confusion.

w is beyond pathetic.
w is the only person who is confused.

OPs either installs a new three wire circuit or uses a GFCI.

Gee - a sentence that is on-topic.

The OP asked how to add a ground wire, which is NEC compliant.

A
properly earthed 'whole house' protector is also required to protect
that GFCI.

UL requires surge protection in GFCI outlets. A MOV connected L-N is
used. How can that possibly protect, w??? No earth ground means no
protection.

And still not answered - how can you possibly protect a flying airplane.
No earth ground means no protection. Is there a massive coverup of
crashes???

And also never answered - simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

And (with some overlap):
1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.
2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?
3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?

And still never seen - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

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

--
bud--

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:21:30 -0700, Jonathan Sachs
wrote:

I used to own a house that was built on a stemwall foundation. I
grounded the electric outlets by drilling a hole up through the bottom
plate under each outlet box, pushing ground wires up through the hole,
and fishing them into the box.

I'm now buying a house that is built on a slab, and many of the
outlets are ungrounded. How should I deal with the problem in this
case?

Your main has a ground. There are other ways, but you need to know
local codes.