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?

On Apr 27, 10:21*pm, 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?

Do it from above.

R

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?

Got an attic? same process, mirror imaged... (and then you'll find all
the firestops in the walls...) yes it is somewhat more difficult this
way, a right angle drill can help.

nate

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

RicodJour wrote:
On Apr 27, 10:21 pm, 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?

Do it from above.

R
Peek in the boxes with a flashlight. If the place was built mid-1960s or
later, odds are there will be a ground wire rolled up under the romex
clamps. This 1960 house had ground cables in place- I just had to
connect them when I switched out the 2-holers for 3-holers. Were the
grounded outlets wired at the same time as the ungrounded ones? If so,
probably same type of wire. And you did plug one of those quick-testers
into the grounded outlets to make sure they really were grounded, right?
(well worth the ten bucks to have one of those in the toolbox, IMHO.)

--
aem sends...

In article ,
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?

Eh? What problem?

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
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?

Eh? What problem?

Trying to ground wall outlets in a hiuse with a slab foundation rather
than joists bearing on a concrete stemwall. The latter allows running a
ground wire up to the wall outlet from the basement or crawl space.
Can't do that with a slab foundation.

--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

"Jonathan Sachs" wrote in message
...
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?


*What year was the house built and what type of wiring is installed?

On Apr 28, 3:02*am, wrote:
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?

Get an pneumatic air hammer and break out about one foot of concrete
under each outlet until you hit the ground (soil) under the concrete.
Remove the outlet from the wall, and bury the entire outlet and box in
the ground under the floor. *This will insure the outlet is well
grounded. *Then pour fresh concrete over each outlet hole and smooth
it to match the original floor. *


For the locations where running a ground wire would be difficult or
impossible, put in GFCI outlets and forget about grounding them.

In article ,
Major Debacle wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
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?

Eh? What problem?

Trying to ground wall outlets in a hiuse with a slab foundation rather
than joists bearing on a concrete stemwall. The latter allows running a
ground wire up to the wall outlet from the basement or crawl space.
Can't do that with a slab foundation.

Clarification: Why does the OP choose to see ungrounded outlets as a
*problem?*

On Apr 28, 2:38*pm, Major Debacle
wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*Major Debacle wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*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?
Eh? What problem?
Trying to ground wall outlets in a hiuse with a slab foundation rather
than joists bearing on a concrete stemwall. The latter allows running a
ground wire up to the wall outlet from the basement or crawl space.
Can't do that with a slab foundation.

Clarification: Why does the OP choose to see ungrounded outlets as a
*problem?*

Careful... that's like questioning the existence of God.

All my outlets are ungrounded. The only problems so far are trying to
plug in a three pronged cord and a vague feeling of being somewhat
behind the technology curve.


Couple reasons why grounded outlets are a Good Thing:

1) If you have any power tools that have a metal case, you run the
slight but non-zero risk of electrocution if there is a ground fault
to the case internal to the tool.

2) Most surge suppressors are not guaranteed to function if not
properly grounded.

now whether these reasons are compelling enough to make you go through
the process...

nate

N8N wrote:
On Apr 28, 2:38 pm, Major Debacle
wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Major Debacle wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
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?
Eh? What problem?
Trying to ground wall outlets in a hiuse with a slab foundation rather
than joists bearing on a concrete stemwall. The latter allows running a
ground wire up to the wall outlet from the basement or crawl space.
Can't do that with a slab foundation.
Clarification: Why does the OP choose to see ungrounded outlets as a
*problem?*
Careful... that's like questioning the existence of God.

All my outlets are ungrounded. The only problems so far are trying to
plug in a three pronged cord and a vague feeling of being somewhat
behind the technology curve.


Couple reasons why grounded outlets are a Good Thing:

1) If you have any power tools that have a metal case, you run the
slight but non-zero risk of electrocution if there is a ground fault
to the case internal to the tool.

And you are standing in a substantial puddle of water or hanging onto a
water pipe with the other hand.


2) Most surge suppressors are not guaranteed to function if not
properly grounded.

now whether these reasons are compelling enough to make you go through
the process...

nate


--
Rights Are Not Given, They Are Taken

When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

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?

How many appliances require a grounded ( 3 pin ) outlet ?
In my house, that woiuld be the washing machine, and the fridge.
As far as I know, all other plug-ins use a ( 2-pin ) polarized plug.

So, unless your community requires 3-hole sockets, why bother ?
Just be sure that the wide slot is "neutral".

On Apr 28, 6:22�pm, "RJ" wrote:
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?

How many appliances require a grounded ( 3 pin ) outlet ?
In my house, that woiuld be the washing machine, and the fridge.
As far as I know, all other plug-ins use a ( 2-pin ) polarized plug.

So, unless your community requires 3-hole sockets, why bother ?
Just be sure that the wide slot is "neutral".

when you decide to sell lack of grounds can move your home into the
fixer upper low price category.............

RJ wrote:
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?

How many appliances require a grounded ( 3 pin ) outlet ?
In my house, that woiuld be the washing machine, and the fridge.
As far as I know, all other plug-ins use a ( 2-pin ) polarized plug.

So, unless your community requires 3-hole sockets, why bother ?
Just be sure that the wide slot is "neutral".


In my case, we have awful power, so I have two UPSes and tons of surge
suppressors. If the worst should happen, the "protected equipment
warranty" is void unless the UPS or surge suppressor is connected to a
grounded outlet.

This may sound like a far-fetched scenario for many people, but a whole
mess of people in my neighborhood lost a lot of electronics a year or so
ago when there was an "incident." Even with my "massive overkill"
approach to surge protection, I lost a circuit board in my air filter
(at that time not protected; now it is) a circuit board in my dishwasher
(only protected by the main panel surge suppressor because it's
hardwired) and a really old surge strip. Dominion Power denied any
responsibility; I repaired all the equipment myself so the cash outlay
was below what our homeowner's deductable would have been. (lost
receipt for the main surge suppressor breaker)

nate

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

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:45:29 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Peek in the boxes with a flashlight. If the place was built mid-1960s or
later, odds are there will be a ground wire rolled up under the romex
clamps.

The house was built in 1960. I'm hoping the boxes are grounded, but if
they are not, I'd like to have a Plan B.

And you did plug one of those quick-testers
into the grounded outlets to make sure they really were grounded, right?

I haven't done that yet because I don't own the house yet, but the
home inspector did it, and he reported that several three-hole outlets
in the original living space are _not_ grounded.

A couple of people suggested going down from the attic. I haven't
examined the attic yet (see above), but I've done that before, and I
can testify that several things can make it impossible, or nearly so:
an outside wall under the eaves; any outside wall that has been
insulated; any wall with bracing. I'm hoping there's a better way.

Jonathan Sachs wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:45:29 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Peek in the boxes with a flashlight. If the place was built mid-1960s or
later, odds are there will be a ground wire rolled up under the romex
clamps.

The house was built in 1960. I'm hoping the boxes are grounded, but if
they are not, I'd like to have a Plan B.

And you did plug one of those quick-testers
into the grounded outlets to make sure they really were grounded, right?

I haven't done that yet because I don't own the house yet, but the
home inspector did it, and he reported that several three-hole outlets
in the original living space are _not_ grounded.

A couple of people suggested going down from the attic. I haven't
examined the attic yet (see above), but I've done that before, and I
can testify that several things can make it impossible, or nearly so:
an outside wall under the eaves; any outside wall that has been
insulated; any wall with bracing. I'm hoping there's a better way.
I'm no code expert, but I recall from previous grounded-outlet threads
on here that some folks said running a ground wire via a different route
than the feed wire, was not code-compliant. As to some of your 3-holers
showing up as non-grounded- I also had some like that, that were merely
wired backward. Swapped the black and white wires, and the tester was
happy. If the boxes are not grounded, and there is no painless way to
run new wire to the outside walls, you may have to pick and choose which
outlets Really Need to be grounded. My other house down in Louisiana is
on a slab, and we had to add a couple strings to feed select spots, like
for the computers, microwave, and such, on interior walls.

--
aem sends...

"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
RJ wrote:
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?

How many appliances require a grounded ( 3 pin ) outlet ?
In my house, that woiuld be the washing machine, and the fridge.
As far as I know, all other plug-ins use a ( 2-pin ) polarized plug.

So, unless your community requires 3-hole sockets, why bother ?
Just be sure that the wide slot is "neutral".


In my case, we have awful power, so I have two UPSes and tons of surge
suppressors. If the worst should happen, the "protected equipment
warranty" is void unless the UPS or surge suppressor is connected to a
grounded outlet.

This may sound like a far-fetched scenario for many people, but a whole
mess of people in my neighborhood lost a lot of electronics a year or so
ago when there was an "incident." Even with my "massive overkill"
approach to surge protection, I lost a circuit board in my air filter (at
that time not protected; now it is) a circuit board in my dishwasher (only
protected by the main panel surge suppressor because it's hardwired) and a
really old surge strip. Dominion Power denied any responsibility; I
repaired all the equipment myself so the cash outlay was below what our
homeowner's deductable would have been. (lost receipt for the main surge
suppressor breaker)


*Nate, make sure that you have a good grounding system for your home. A
water pipe ground and ground rods should help with your problem

On Apr 29, 8:04*am, "John Grabowski" wrote:
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message

...





RJ wrote:
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?

How many appliances require a grounded ( 3 pin ) outlet ?
In my house, that woiuld be the washing machine, and the fridge.
As far as I know, all other plug-ins use a ( 2-pin ) polarized plug.

So, unless your community requires 3-hole sockets, why bother ?
Just be sure that the wide slot is "neutral".

In my case, we have awful power, so I have two UPSes and tons of surge
suppressors. *If the worst should happen, the "protected equipment
warranty" is void unless the UPS or surge suppressor is connected to a
grounded outlet.

This may sound like a far-fetched scenario for many people, but a whole
mess of people in my neighborhood lost a lot of electronics a year or so
ago when there was an "incident." *Even with my "massive overkill"
approach to surge protection, I lost a circuit board in my air filter (at
that time not protected; now it is) a circuit board in my dishwasher (only
protected by the main panel surge suppressor because it's hardwired) and a
really old surge strip. *Dominion Power denied any responsibility; I
repaired all the equipment myself so the cash outlay was below what our
homeowner's deductable would have been. *(lost receipt for the main surge
suppressor breaker)

*Nate, make sure that you have a good grounding system for your home. A
water pipe ground and ground rods should help with your problem- Hide quoted text -

It appears to be OK although I have not investigated thoroughly (how
would one test something concealed like ground rods anyway?) but
everything inside the house looks copacetic. What apparently happened
was that a tree fell on a high voltage power line which fell on top of
a lower voltage power line thus momentarily producing a voltage 10x or
more normal. With what should have been an odd failure, I feel lucky
to get away as easy as I did.

But that prompts a question - short of going outside and digging along
the ground cable and inspecting the number of buried ground rods, how
would one determine if an older house does in fact have proper
grounding? (I know, lift the neutral to the pole and see if anything
blows up...)

Actually you just reminded me that we just replaced our fridge which
WAS an old, purely mechanical device with a fancy new one with an
electronic control/display.... probably should slap a point of use
surge protector on that as well.

nate

aemeijers wrote:
Jonathan Sachs wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:45:29 GMT, aemeijers wrote:

Peek in the boxes with a flashlight. If the place was built mid-1960s
or later, odds are there will be a ground wire rolled up under the
romex clamps.

The house was built in 1960. I'm hoping the boxes are grounded, but if
they are not, I'd like to have a Plan B.

And you did plug one of those quick-testers into the grounded outlets
to make sure they really were grounded, right?

I haven't done that yet because I don't own the house yet, but the
home inspector did it, and he reported that several three-hole outlets
in the original living space are _not_ grounded.

The common 3 light testers will reliably show there is a problem (but
could give the wrong problem). If the tester indicates there is a good
ground there probably is, but not necessarily.

If a "grounded" outlet is not grounded it can be replaced by a 2 prong
non-grounding outlet. Most equipment these days does not have a ground pin.

A couple of people suggested going down from the attic. I haven't
examined the attic yet (see above), but I've done that before, and I
can testify that several things can make it impossible, or nearly so:
an outside wall under the eaves; any outside wall that has been
insulated; any wall with bracing. I'm hoping there's a better way.

At least one other post suggested using a GFCI outlet. It is NEC
compliant and gives you a grounded type outlet. But no ground, which may
or may not be a problem. The outlet should be labeled with a "No
equipment ground" label that comes with the outlet. If the circuit
continues past the GFCI outlet, the circuit can be connected to the load
terminals of the GFCI, and outlets downstream will be protected. Outlets
downstream of GFCI protection can be grounding type but must be labeled
"No equipment ground" and "GFCI protected". The ground contacts of these
outlets should not be interconnected by ground wires that are not
actually grounded.

I'm no code expert, but I recall from previous grounded-outlet threads
on here that some folks said running a ground wire via a different route
than the feed wire, was not code-compliant.

Generally all wires have to run together but there is an exception for
an ungrounded outlet - the ground wire can be run by itself. The added
ground wire can go to anywhere on the "grounding electrode system". That
includes the source panel ground bar, the heavy wires connecting to the
grounding electrodes (often the easiest) or the first 5 feet of water
pipe inside the building.

--
bud--

On Apr 29, 8:31*am, N8N wrote:
But that prompts a question - short of going outside and digging along
the ground cable and inspecting the number of buried ground rods, how
would one determine if an older house does in fact have proper
grounding? *(I know, lift the neutral to the pole and see if anything
blows up...)

Ground must be installed so that it can be inspected. Visual
inspection is the only method to confirm an earth ground exists and is
sufficient. Furthermore, every incoming utility must make a short
connection to that same earthing electrode. IOW a gray NID telephone
box contains a 'whole house' protector that must be earthed. Cable TV
is earthed directly - no protector required. These ground wires
should be traced to the same ground rod that is also just outside the
breaker box.

Grounding serves two functions. First is human safety. Code states
what is required. Second function is surge protection. That means
grounding must exceed those requirements. Connection from each
utility wire (ie breaker box, telephone NID, cable ground block) must
be short (ie 'less than ten feet'). Separated from other wires.
Only meets all other ground wires at the same earth electrode. No
sharp bends. Not inside metallic conduit. Violation of any of these
means a ground for surge protection has been compromised.

Remember what a surge proetctor does. Diverts energy to be
harmlessly dissipated into earth. If ground via the safety ground
wire inside romex, well, that wire also violates most every above
requirement which is why 'point of use' protectors have no earthing.
Which is why 'point of use' protectors do not even claim to protect
from the type of surges that are typically destructive.

Sounds like your best solution is to install new grounds so that all
incoming utilities make that short connection to earth. Since a surge
protector is defined by quality of its earthing, then additional
earthing would make an effective protector even better.

Earthing must meet and exceed post 1990 code requirements to
accomplish what you are asking. Type of surge that typically destroys
appliances is either earthed (dissipated harmlessly in earth) before
entering a building. Or finds destructive paths through household
appliances inside the house. A protector connected to earth via
household wires (ie romex) is all but no earth ground. It may then
earth that surge destructively through an appliance as we have seen so
often. A surge diverted into and dissipated in earth need not enter a
building - does not overwhelm protection that already exists inside
every appliance.

westom wrote:

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

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

MOVs in service panel and plug-in suppressors are very effective at
limiting the voltage from a surge, which is very short duration, even if
it involves thousands of amps. Crossed power lines are far too long a
duration and will rapidly burn out MOVs. 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 will disconnect on overvoltage, or a UPS may go to
backup and protect connected equipment.

Cable TV
is earthed directly - no protector required.

Ho-hum - the usual drivel back again.

Doesn't need a protector? The IEEE guide says "there is no requirement
to limit the voltage developed between the core and the sheath. .... The
only voltage limit is the breakdown of the F connectors, typically ~2–4
kV." And "there is obviously the possibility of damage to TV tuners and
cable modems from the very high voltages that can be developed,
especially from nearby lightning." (A plug-in suppressor will limit the
voltage from core to shield.)

Remember what a surge proetctor does. Diverts energy to be
harmlessly dissipated into earth. If ground via the safety ground
wire inside romex, well, that wire also violates most every above
requirement which is why 'point of use' protectors have no earthing.

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

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents
damaging voltages between power and signal wires.

The NIST guide, using US insurance information, suggests that most
equipment damage is from high voltage between power and phone/cable wires.

Which is why 'point of use' protectors do not even claim to protect
from the type of surges that are typically destructive.

Complete nonsense.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Since a surge
protector is defined by quality of its earthing, then additional
earthing would make an effective protector even better.

If you have a surge-produced current to earth of 1,000A with a very good
resistance to earth of 10 ohms, the potential of the power "ground" at
the house will rise 10,000V above "absolute" earth potential. Much of
the "protection" is that power and phone and cable wires rise together.
That requires a short ground wire from the cable and phone entry
protectors to the "ground" at the power service. A ground wire that is
too long is illustrated in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.

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."

Type of surge that typically destroys
appliances is either earthed (dissipated harmlessly in earth) before
entering a building.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
But 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."

Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltages from developing
between power and signal wires.

A refrigerator, a "one link appliance", would likely be protected by a
service panel suppressor.


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

Then read w's sources that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work. There
are none.

w can't even answer 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?

--
bud--

On Apr 30, 11:38*am, bud-- wrote:
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversio...
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" *published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" *published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001
bud must deny what any protector does. From page 6 of his NIST
citation:
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.

bud is paid to promote protectors with the necessary earth ground
connection. bud must say anything to promote plug-in protectors even
though none will even claim such protection. Not one. In fact, bud's
own citation Page 42 Figure 8 shos what happens when a protector is
too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. A surge is
earthed 8000 volts destrutively through an adjacent TV.

bud will say anything, including the usual insults, to protect
massive profit margins. Even post half facts. bud even forgets the
damage created by plug-in (point of use) protectors as defined in
Martzloff's 1994 IEEE papaer:
Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Why do telcos not use any product that bud promotes? For 100 years,
the effective protectors always required a short conneciton to earth.
According to bud, surge energy magically disappears inside a plug-in
protector. IEEE papers (including those cited by bud) say otherwise.
Either surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly in earth OR it is
dissipated destrutively inside appliances. bud's Page 42 Figure 8
shows that. Martzloff says that. Even page 17 of bud's NIST paper
says again why plug-in protectors do not protect from surges that are
typically destructive:
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.

bud is paid to promote ineffective and obscenely overprices
protectors. Even telcos all over the world (that typically suffer 100
surges during every thunderstorm) do not use anything recommended by
bud. Telcos use 'whole house' protector and even better earthing.
Others have spend massively on plug-in protectors and still suffered
damage. We install only one 'whole house' protector so that better
earthing means nothing is damaged. When was phone service lost
everywhere in your town as they spend four days replacing their surge
damaged computer? Never happens because 'whole house' protectors are
connected as short as possible to better earthing. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.

So where is that spec on any bud protector that even claims
protection? bud says his plug-in protector are complete protection
systems. bud refuses to provide even one protector spec for one
simple reason. No plug-in (point of use) protector claims to protect
from the typically destuctive surge. Of course not. No earth ground
means no effective protection.

Defined is the earthing so essential is that a protection can do
what? NIST (and literally every other responsible source) says what
is necessary to make a protector effective:
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.

How does bud's plug-in protector divert to ground? It doesn't. It
does not even claim to protect from such surges. It will somehow stop
and absorb what three miles of sky cannot? bud makes that claim. So
bud will post more insults; keep others confused. When selling a $3
power strip with some ten cent parts for $25 or $150, then even I
would sell you such devices. Profit margins are just too excessive
for anyone to be honest.

But I don't post insults selling a scam. Nobody uses bud's solution
where damage is unacceptable. Every where that even direct lightning
strikes must never cause damage, better earthing and 'whole house'
protectors are used.

What does the US Air Force demand for surge protection? In Training
manuals, all protectors must be properly earthed 'whole house'
protectors. Plug-in protectors do not provide protection from
typically destructive surges due to no earth ground. As the Air Force
says:
Install the surge protection as soon as practical where
the conductor enters the interior of the facility. Devices
commonly used for this include metal oxide varistors,
gas tube arresters, and transzorbs.

I need not post insults as bud always does everywhere. I am not
selling a scam. Every facility that must never have surge damage
significantly upgrades earthing AND installs 'whole house'
protectors. Earth is where direct lightning strikes are harmlessly
dissipated in earth. No earth ground means what to harmlessly absorb
that surge? Even surges created by falling high voltage wires on
local distribution seek earth. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. A device that diverts surge energy harmlessly into
earth. A solution so well proven as to always be required in every
munitions dump.

One does not even know if his earthing exists. If an earthing wire
crosses the building to connect to a water pipe, then earthing all but
does not exist. Critical to effective surge protection is a short (ie
'less than 10 foot') connection to an earth ground for every incoming
utility. A protector (ie one installed for free on everyone's phone
line) is only as effective as its earth ground. Earth is the
protection. . No insults are required to define science and expose
salesmen myths. Even bud's citations say why plug-in protectors are
ineffective. Where is one plug-in protector spec that claims
protection? No protection claims exist for an obvious reason - no
dedicated earthing connection means no effective protection. bud
cannot even provide one spec - and he works for them. Which is why
telcos everywhere in the world do not use bud's protectors.

On Apr 30, 3:10*pm, westom wrote:

Is it possible to ask a simple question on AHR about surge protection
and/or grounding without...

....never mind. I know the answer to THAT question.

nate

(you'd think I'd learn. But I seriously would like to know if there's
any way to "verify" that a building ground is good without digging up
the ground rods.)

In article
,
N8N wrote:

On Apr 30, 3:10*pm, westom wrote:

Is it possible to ask a simple question on AHR about surge protection
and/or grounding without...

...never mind. I know the answer to THAT question.


I think Bud and Tom actually believe that sooner or later, after perhaps
17000 discussions, one of them will actually win the debate.

On Apr 30, 5:57*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
I think Bud and Tom actually believe that sooner or later, after perhaps
17000 discussions, one of them will actually win the debate.

Bud follows me everywhere cutting and pasting the same accusations
and half truth for one simple reason. It is his job. The only people
who win will do what every reliable radio and TV station, telephone
switching center (CO), military bases, maritime nuclear hardened radio
stations, and even munitions dumps have been doing for over 100 years.

In every case, the protector does not provide protection. But a
'magic' box with that massive profit margin somehow gets promoted.
After all, will it stop and absorb what three miles of sky could not?
Of course not. That is why high reliablity factilities do not waste
money on plug-in protectors.

Nobody can *sell* earth ground. So sales brochures don't mention
it. But industry benchmark in surge protection ... even their
application notes define the only compoent always required for surge
protection: single point earth ground
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

As others have noted, earthing is essential to surge protection. As
IEEE states in standards, this is not 100% protection. Spend tens or
100 times more money for the plug-in protectors for the additional
0.5% protection? Even IEEE Standards define how effective properly
earthed protection really is:
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 ...

If you learn this, then bud's profit margins will dimish. However,
if you learn this, then you will buy protectors from far more
resonsible companies such as Square D, General Electric, Cutler-
Hammer, Leviton, Keison, Polyphaser, Intermatic, and so many others.
Buy protectors that costs about $1 per protected appliance - not the
$150 protector recommended by bud.

On Apr 30, 4:23*pm, wrote:
It isn't magic, it is just energy that gets converted to heat in the
MOV., That works until the MOV burns up. That is why MOVs are rated by
the amount of energy they can convert and how fast.

Let's view those numbers. The protector is rated for how many
hundred joules? It will somehow absorb the hundreds of thousands of
joules in a surge? That is what bud promotes.

Meanwhile, even bud's citation (page 6) says what the effective
protector does. It does not absorb surge energy:
What these protective devices do is neither
suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert
it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Not absorb or stop a surge. Instead, MOVs divert (connect, bond,
conduct, shunt) energy harmlessly into earth. No wonder every
facility that has no surge damage also does better earthing.

NIST then states on page 17:
The best surge protection in the world can be useless
if grounding is not done properly.

Why? Earth ground is the protection. Or as Dr Ken Schneider (?)
says:
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to ground. Once
a threatening surge is detected, a lightning protection device grounds
the incoming signal connection point of the equipment being protected.
Thus, redirecting the threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance
(impedance) to ground where it is absorbed.

Where are thousands of joules absorbed? In a protector rated for
hundreds of joules? In a protector rated to dissipate at most, tens
of watts? Of course not. Surge protection means massive surge energy
gets connected and dissipated harmlessly in earth - not inside the
protector.

A surge that does not enter the building will not overwhelm
protection inside every appliance. Just another reason why telcos use
'whole house' protectors, better earthing, and no plug-in protectors.
Just another reason why every wire that enters every CO first goes
underground, connects to well earthed 'whole house' protectors, and
typically locate the switching computers up to 50 meters separated
from the protectors. All this so that any surge is harmlessly
dissipated in earth - what provides protection.

Let's view those numbers. Notice no plug-in protector even claims
to provide that protection. bud must say anything to avoid that fact
and essential purpose of earthing: to harmlessly absorb surges
energy. A protector (a diverting device) is only as effective as its
earth ground. Hunderd joule MOVs do not work by absorbing hundreds of
thousands of joules from surges. Which is what a protector must do to
claim surge protection is its numeric specifications.

Solution to household surge damage starts with inspecting earth
ground for the secondary protection system. And yes, these is also
another (primary) protection system.

N8N posted for all of us...


On Apr 30, 3:10*pm, westom wrote:

Is it possible to ask a simple question on AHR about surge protection
and/or grounding without...

...never mind. I know the answer to THAT question.

nate

(you'd think I'd learn. But I seriously would like to know if there's
any way to "verify" that a building ground is good without digging up
the ground rods.)

I believe a megger can be used.

--
Tekkie Don't bother to thank me, I do this as a public service.

westom wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:38 am, bud-- wrote:
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

bud must deny what any protector does. From page 6 of his NIST
citation:

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.

bud is paid to promote protectors

One of w's favorite lies. Wouldn't be necessary if poor w had valid
technical arguments.

In fact, bud's
own citation Page 42 Figure 8 shos what happens when a protector is
too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. A surge is
earthed 8000 volts destrutively through an adjacent TV.

Another of w's favorite lies.

In the IEEE 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 ground at the power service
that is far 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.

bud even forgets the
damage created by plug-in (point of use) protectors as defined in
Martzloff's 1994 IEEE papaer:

w forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."

On alt.engineering.electrical, w similarly misconstrued the views of
Arshad Mansoor, another upside down house author, and provoked a
response from an electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of surge equalization type
[multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from
me. LOL."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

bud refuses to provide even one protector spec for one
simple reason. No plug-in (point of use) protector claims to protect
from the typically destuctive surge.

Another of w's favorite lies.

Specs have been provided often, such as about a year ago in this newsgroup:
http://tinyurl.com/6alnza
Specs are just ignored by w.

It will somehow stop
and absorb what three miles of sky cannot? bud makes that claim.

w is fond of inventing what others say.

Poor w's religious blinders prevent him from reading the explanation in
the IEEE guide of how plug-in suppressors work.
Repeating:
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or
absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.

I need not post insults as bud always does everywhere.

Poor sensitive w is insulted by reality.

A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground.

w's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

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]"?

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

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:57 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
I think Bud and Tom actually believe that sooner or later, after perhaps
17000 discussions, one of them will actually win the debate.

It is now 36,371.

Have you ever "won" a discussion with a Jehovah's Witness?

However,
if you learn this, then you will buy protectors from far more
resonsible companies such as Square D, General Electric, Cutler-
Hammer, Leviton, Keison, Polyphaser, Intermatic, and so many others.

As trader4 has shown, all of these "responsible" companies except
SquareD and Polyphaser make plug-in suppressors. Must be they aren't
"responsible" at all.

For its "best" service panel suppressor SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."


As always - no 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"?

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

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On Apr 30, 4:23 pm, wrote:
It isn't magic, it is just energy that gets converted to heat in the
MOV., That works until the MOV burns up. That is why MOVs are rated by
the amount of energy they can convert and how fast.

Let's view those numbers. The protector is rated for how many
hundred joules? It will somehow absorb the hundreds of thousands of
joules in a surge? That is what bud promotes.

w is not able to understand simple physics.

Francois Martzloff was the NIST guru on surges, wrote the NIST guide,
and has many published technical papers. One of them looks at a MOV on a
branch circuit of 10-50 meters with surges to the power service of
2,000-10,000A (the maximum with any reasonable probability of occurring,
at least for a house).

Surprisingly, the maximum energy dissipated was 35 Joules. In 13 of 15
cases it was 1 Joule or less. That is because at about 6,0000V there is
arc-over from service hot bus to the enclosure. After the arc is
established the voltage is hundreds of volts. In US services, the
enclosure is connected to the equipment ground wires, the neutral wires
and the earthing system. Arc-over dumped most of the incoming energy to
earth. In addition, the impedance of the branch circuit wiring greatly
limits the current that can reach the MOV. Surges are very short
duration, so the inductance of the wire is much more important than the
resistance.

The higher energies were for a 10M branch circuit and, even more
surprising, the lower current surges below 5,000A. Contrary to
intuition, at all branch circuit lengths the energy dissipation at the
MOV was lower as the surge current went up. That was because the MOV
acted to clamp the voltage at the service panel. With the short branch
circuit and lowest surge currents, the MOV prevented arc-over. Higher
current surges forced the voltage up faster, causing arc-over faster and
more energy was dumped to earth.

MOVs in both service panels and plug-in suppressors do not protect by
absorbing energy. But they absorb some energy in the process of protecting.


Also, stated Joule ratings are for a single event - one surge that puts
the MOV at its defined end of life (but still functional). If the
energy hits are much smaller, the cumulative energy rating is much
higher. For example a MOV might have a (single event) rating of 1,000J.
If the individual hits are 14J the cumulative energy rating might be
13,000J. High ratings give a much longer life than you might expect.

For the reasons above, a plug-in suppressor with high ratings is not
likely to ever fail. That is one reason some manufacturers can provide
protected equipment warranties.

Notice no plug-in protector even claims
to provide that protection.

Complete nonsense. Some manufacturers even have protected equipment
warranties.


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"?

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

--
bud--

Tekkie® wrote:
N8N posted for all of us...

On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, westom wrote:

Is it possible to ask a simple question on AHR about surge protection
and/or grounding without...

...never mind. I know the answer to THAT question.

nate

(you'd think I'd learn. But I seriously would like to know if there's
any way to "verify" that a building ground is good without digging up
the ground rods.)

Such a simple question. You would think there would be a simple answer.

Easiest is probably follow the earthing conductor to find what
electrodes are used (as John suggested). A metal water service pipe is
an excellent electrode [but can invoke another of w's delusions]. In
older buildings the other electrode you may find is one or more ground
rods. Rods are not a particularly good electrode. It is probably easier
to add a rod than determine if an old rod is still good.

Measuring resistance to earth can be done with a 3 point tester - not
easy. There is a simple clamp on tester. Not likely you can borrow one.
A contractor may have one.

An old method I have read about is to disconnect the earthing conductor
from the service and connect it to the hot through a 6.25A fuse [a
standard size]. If the fuse blows fast the resistance is 20 ohms or
less. I might try this but I'm not sure I would recommend it - there are
a number of hazards including just disconnecting the wire. The earthing
wire must not contact *anything* but the electrode. (This also depends
on the earthing of the utility transformer and can result in some
earthing current through other customer's electrodes.)


Crossed power lines are rare and it is difficult to provide protection.

As I noted elsewhere, much of the protection from surges is actually
having the power and phone and cable wires stay at the same potential
(although elevated) during a surge event.


I believe a megger can be used.

A megger is to measure very high resistances (megohms, like insulation).

--
bud--

On May 1, 12:19*pm, bud-- wrote:
As trader4 has shown, all of these "responsible" companies except
SquareD and Polyphaser make plug-in suppressors. Must be they aren't
"responsible" at all.

Even I would sell someone a plug-in protector. Profits are that
massive - obscene. Of course, I too must claim no protection from
typically destructive surges.. So where is that bud numeric spec that
claims his plug-in protectors provides any protection. He still
cannot find even one. He pretends the question has not been asked
1000 times - and never answered.

Meanwhile only companies with responsible names make protectors that
actually earth surge energy. Nothing from APC, Tripplite, Belkin, or
Monster Cable will do that - or even claims to.

bud cannot post even one manufacturer spec that claims protection.
Why? Plug-in protectors don't claim that protection. When too close
to electronics and too far from earth ground, that few hundred joules
must absorb hundreds of thousands of joules?

So it either does nothing OR the surge is earthed destructively by
some other appliance, OR one 'whole house' protector means the power
strip protector never sees any significant surge energy. Why spend
money on so many plug-in protectors when one 'whole house' protector
does so much?

Why do high reliability facilities use 'whole house' protectors and
earthing. Why do so many factilities only use earthed protectors -
not plug-in protectors? Because they need protection. And because
they have no interest in enriching bud and his peers.

Protection is only as effective as its earth ground. That also
means a short (low impedance - not just low resistance) connection to
earth. Polyphaser (an industry benchmark) even makes a protector that
has no connection to earth. To obtain low impedance, the Polyphaser
protector mounts ON earth ground - zero feet to earth. No matter
how sales promoters spin it, protectors are only as effective as their
earthing. No wonder earthing is always done carefully in every
facility that has no surge damage.

High reliability facilities upgrade their earthing and
Install the surge protection as soon as practical where the conductor
enters the interior of the facility. - US Air Force
OR
bonding all services together with a low impedance path to earth
ground. - Schmidt Consulting
OR
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process
of interception of lightning produced surges, diverting them to
ground - IEEE Std 141 (Red Book)
OR
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to ground.
Dr Kenneth Schneider
OR
A properly installed lightning protection system intercepts the
lightning bolt between cloud and earth and harmlessly conducts
it to ground without damage. - IPC Company
OR
Of course you *must* have a single point ground system that
eliminates all ground loops. And you must present a low
*impedance* path for the energy to go. That's most generally a
low *inductance* path rather than just a low ohm DC path.
- Gary Coffman Station Engineer WXIA-TV
OR
The basic scenario is to install a Single Point Ground System
that is installed at the building entry. It shunts everything to
ground before it goes in the building. If you can keep it outside,
then you don't really have to do much inside. - many discussions
on surge protection at http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/
OR
1) Capture lightning strikes at a preferred point(s)
2) Conduct the energy safely to ground
3) Dissipate energy into ground
4) Equipotentially bond all grounds
- "Need for Coordinated Protection" from Erico.com
OR
First and foremost, there should be only one ground system.
Second, the individual l/O protectors need to be co-located
on the same electrical ground plane. This means
establishing a single point ground system within the
equipment building. - Polyphaser application note
OR
Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can be diverted.
... These should divert the power of the surge by providing a
path to ground for the surge energy. - Sun Microsystem planning
guide for server rooms.
OR
The purpose of the ground connection is to take the energy arriving
on the antenna feed line cables and control lines (and to a lesser
extent on the power and telephone lines) and give it a path back to
the earth, our energy sink. The impedance of the ground connection
should be low so the energy prefers this path and is dispersed
harmlessly. - ARRL's QST magazine July 2002 on ""Lightning
Protection for the Amateur Radio Station"
OR
Without proper bonding, all other elements of the LPs are useless.
Bonding of all metallic conductors in a dispatch facility assures
everything is at equal potential. ... This eliminates the unequal
voltages in separate sensitive signal and data systems. Bonding
should connect all conductors to the same "Mother Earth."
- National Lightning Safety Institute
OR
Those who say "nothing will withstand a direct lightning strike"
are very misinformed. My towers take direct lightning hits most
every big storm. .... With NO damage!
Those old wives tales of damage are for the most part over 50
year old tales of woe from improperly grounded/ protected
stations. - Charles Bushell - KC8VWM and numerous others
on eham.net
OR
Surge protection devices should ideally operate instantaneously
to divert a surge current to ground with no residual common-mode
voltage presented at the equipment terminals. - Atlantic Scientific
OR
Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement may
result in hazardous potential being developed between the
telephone (data) equipment and other grounded items -
IEEE Standard 1100 (Emerald Book)
OR
In one memorable instance at KROA, lightning ignored the existing
grounding system and instead followed the coaxial cable directly
into the transmitter room. ... the incident was a strong indication
that the grounding system should be improved. - "Proper Copper
Grounding Systems Stops Lightning Damage at Nebraska FM
Station"
OR
A surge protection device (SPD), also known as a transient voltage
surge suppressor (TVSS), is designed to divert high-current surges
to ground and bypass your equipment, thereby limiting the voltage
that is impressed on the equipment. For this reason, it is critical that
your facility have a good, low-resistance grounding system, with a
single ground reference point to which the grounds of all building
systems are connected. Without a proper grounding system, there
is no way to protect against surges. - "Guidelines For Providing
Surge Protection at Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial
Facilities"
OR
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. - IEEE Standard 142 (Green Book)
OR
Surge protection takes on many forms, but always involves the
following components: Grounding bonding and surge protectors. ...
Grounding is required to provide the surge protector with a path
to dump the excess energy to earth. A proper ground system is
a mandatory requirement of surge protection. Without a proper
ground, a surge protector has no way to disburse the excess
energy and will fail to protect downstream equipment. - FAQ
from Southwest Bell on surge protection
OR
TVSS devices showed to reduce the peak voltage of the
transient surges ... This was accomplished because the TVSS
... thus provided a low impedance path to ground for the
transient surge. geindustrial.com white paper "The Influence
Of Cable Connections on TVSS Performance"
OR
The breakdown of the gap forms a very low impedance path
to ground thus diverting the surge away from the equipment.
Littelfuse application note "Surge Suppression Technologies
for AC Mains Compared"
OR
The primary protection is intended to divert fault currents
away from the protected equipment and into a reliable earth
ground. - Legerity App note "Overvoltage Protection of
Solid-State Subscriber Loop Circuits"
OR
Providing a flow path for the lightning current is central to
effective lightning protection. ... Lightning is essentially a
current impulse which is trying to return to earth. - EE
Times Apr 2008 "Protecting electrical devices from
lightning transients"
OR
All work by reacting to the excess voltage caused by
the surge and by changing electrical state to conduct
the surge energy safely to earth. If correctly specified,
they will reduce the surge voltage to below the
withstand voltage of the connected equipment.
- Bowthorpe's discussion of BS6651 - a British
standard for surge protection.

How does his protector stop what three miles of sky could not? How
does he explain his protector earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV? He pretends we engineers also
did not see that damage. So where is that manufacturer spec that
claims all this protection? Even bud cannot find one? But we should
believe the sales promoter?

We earth one 'whole house' protector for the 99.5% protection.
Some may spend massively on power strip protectors if another 0.5%
protection is required. Just more numbers from an IEEE Standard that
bud must ignore. Profits are at risk.

On May 1, 12:23 pm, bud-- wrote:
Surprisingly, the maximum energy dissipated was 35 Joules. In 13 of 15
cases it was 1 Joule or less. That is because at about 6,0000V there is
arc-over from service hot bus to the enclosure. After the arc is
established the voltage is hundreds of volts. In US services, the
enclosure is connected to the equipment ground wires, the neutral wires
and the earthing system. Arc-over dumped most of the incoming energy to
earth.

So the 100 plug-in protectors saw no surge energy - nothing that
could harm appliances - when one 'whole house' protector was properly
earthed. Arcing or diverting surge energy harmlessly in earth means
no energy for the protector to absorb - no appliance damage.

Why buy fifty $25 or $150 per appliance protectors when protection
is made irrelevant by one 'whole house' protector? One 'whole house'
protectors selling for less than $50 in Lowes makes maybe $50,000 in
plug-in protectors irrelevant? Whose profit margins are being
protected?

Why do bud's plug-in protectors see no energy? If that energy is
properly diverted to earth before entering the building, then no surge
exists to overwhelm protection already inside every appliance.

One 'whole house' protector means no plug-in protectors are needed
AND eliminates reasons for these scary pictures from fire departments,
fire marshals, 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/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/les...tectorfire.htm

Scary pictures - just another reason for earthing destructive surges
harmlessly where? Outside the building. . Keep that threat away from
papers on a desk or the carpet. No wonder telcos don't waste money on
plug-in protectors. Just another reason for earthing one 'whole
house' protector. It costs how much in Lowes?

So where is that 'plug-in protector' manufacturer spec that claims
protection? Maybe I overlooked it?

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

westom wrote:
On May 1, 12:19 pm, bud-- wrote:
As trader4 has shown, all of these "responsible" companies except
SquareD and Polyphaser make plug-in suppressors. Must be they aren't
"responsible" at all.

Even I would sell someone a plug-in protector.

So now w says his "responsible companies" aren't responsible at all.

But what about SquareD. They don't sell plug-in suppressors but say
"electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing
plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".

Of course, I too must claim no protection from
typically destructive surges.

Of course the "responsible companies" say their plug-in suppressors are
effective - trader4 showed that in a previous thread.

So where is that bud numeric spec that
claims his plug-in protectors provides any protection. He still
cannot find even one. He pretends the question has not been asked
1000 times - and never answered.

The lie repeated.
Specs have been provided often, including in this thread. They are
always ignored - as they have been in this thread.

bud cannot post even one manufacturer spec that claims protection.

The lie repeated again.

When too close
to electronics and too far from earth ground, that few hundred joules
must absorb hundreds of thousands of joules?

Poor w ignores the results from Martzloff, just like he ignores
everything else that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

w is the poster child for cognitive dissonance.

How does his protector stop what three miles of sky could not?

It is willful stupidity.

w refuses to understand the explanation in the IEEE guide. Plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to the
ground at the suppressor.

And w refuses to understand the results from Martzloff.

How
does he explain his protector earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV?

Another lie repeated.

He pretends we engineers also
did not see that damage.

Any alleged engineers are not able to RTFM. Any competent manufacturer
will say that all wires to a set of protected equipment must go through
a plug-in suppressor.

So where is that manufacturer spec that
claims all this protection? Even bud cannot find one?

The lie repeated for the 3rd time.

But still never seen - a source that agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

And 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"?

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

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On May 1, 12:23 pm, bud-- wrote:
Surprisingly, the maximum energy dissipated was 35 Joules. In 13 of 15
cases it was 1 Joule or less. That is because at about 6,0000V there is
arc-over from service hot bus to the enclosure. After the arc is
established the voltage is hundreds of volts. In US services, the
enclosure is connected to the equipment ground wires, the neutral wires
and the earthing system. Arc-over dumped most of the incoming energy to
earth.

So the 100 plug-in protectors saw no surge energy - nothing that
could harm appliances - when one 'whole house' protector was properly
earthed.

There were not 100 suppressors and there was no service panel suppressor.
w is hallucinating again.

Arcing or diverting surge energy harmlessly in earth means
no energy for the protector to absorb - no appliance damage.

There is voltage and energy that can damage connected equipment.

The NIST guide suggests that the major cause of damage to electronics is
high voltage between power and signal wires. That is a separate issue
from surges on power wires.

Why buy fifty $25 or $150 per appliance protectors when protection
is made irrelevant by one 'whole house' protector?

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."

Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltages from developing
between power and signal wires.

If that energy is
properly diverted to earth before entering the building, then no surge
exists to overwhelm protection already inside every appliance.

Provide a source that says protection is "inside every appliance".

Protection, if it exists, is typically MOVs. How can MOVs protect when
there is no short connection to an earth ground? No earth ground means
no protection.

One 'whole house' protector means no plug-in protectors are needed
AND eliminates reasons for these scary pictures from fire departments,
fire marshals, etc:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w refuses to 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 these links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.

So where is that 'plug-in protector' manufacturer spec that claims
protection? Maybe I overlooked it?

w always overlooks it. His religious blinders prevent him from seeing
anything that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

And the religious belief in earthing.
Why aren't airplanes crashing every day. Or do they drag an earthing chain?


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”?

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

--
bud--

On May 2, 4:10*am, bud-- wrote:
westom wrote:
On May 1, 12:19 pm, bud-- wrote:
As trader4 has shown, all of these "responsible" companies except
SquareD and Polyphaser make plug-in suppressors. Must be they aren't
"responsible" at all.

* Even I would sell someone a plug-in protector.

So now *w says his "responsible companies" aren't responsible at all.

LOL. And now we have Tom saying he'd actually sell someone a product
that he not only says is totally ineffective, but that he claims
actually CAUSES damage. At least we know a little more about his
ethics.




But what about SquareD. They don't sell plug-in suppressors but say
"electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing
plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".

Of course, I too must claim no protection from
typically destructive surges.

Of course the "responsible companies" say their plug-in suppressors are
effective - trader4 showed that in a previous thread.



And 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"?


And I'm still waiting for an answer to my simple question to Tom
posted months ago:

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? Tom himself claims that
protection inside appliances IS EFFECTIVE. So, how can that be? Is
there a mythical direct earth ground inside these appliances?

Also, I thought another excellent question raised by someone with
considerable insight a few months ago, deserves an answer:

If surge protection is impossible without a direct earth ground, how
is it that aircraft are protected from surges from nearby lightning or
direct strikes?

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. Anything that MOVs would do inside the Apple
II and other appliances was done better and cheaper by other internal
designs.

MOV is a diverting device. It does not stop and absorb energy as
bud claims. 1) Without a short connection to divert energy into, it
may even contribute to electronics damage - as we engineers even
proved. We traced an MOV earthed a surge destructively through a
network of powered off computers. MOV gave the surge more destructive
paths through computers. Then we learned this stuff by also doing
it. 2) bud's IEEE citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows what we also
learned. 3) Martzloff's IEEE paper also cautions about objectionable
voltages because the protector is too close to appliances and too far
from earth ground.

Numerous sources say the same thing. MOVs protectors are not
effective when disconnected from protection (no wonder bud fears to
discuss earth ground). MOV once were inside appliances - and
appliances were still damaged. Then MOVs were moved to be close to
earth ground. Damage stopped with MOVs located as required even by
telcos 100 years ago. But then I am only posting well understood
science. You saw an MOV inside an appliance and then assumed all
appliances have them?

As the NIST says, MOVs are diverting devices. Divert massive surge
energy harmlessly into earth. To make both MOVs and wire even better,
we increase them so that both wire and MOV absorb even less energy.
How to get a protector to absorb less energy and divert even more
energy harmlessly into earth? Increase its joules. A protector with
more joules will absorb less energy. Of course. Anyone can see that
using numbers from datasheets. That is what better protectors do.
Not absorb surges as a plug-in protector (or MOVs inside an appliance)
must do. Protectors are made even better when connected shorter to an
even better earth ground.

Only ineffective protectors make that ‘stop and absorb’ claim - and
only in sales brochures. Where is that manufacturer spec that
actually claims protection? Appliance manufactures stopping
installing MOVs inside appliances long ago. Others even confuse that
MOV with another device - inrush current limiter – since they look
similar. All appliances contain internal protection that is far
better than what an internal MOV might do. Why do we install and
earth the 'whole house' protector? So that protection inside every
appliance is not overwhelmed.

If ten cent MOVs inside an appliance are so effective, then why is
anyone spending $25 or $150 on plug-in protectors? Clearly the
superior solution is to install MOVs inside the appliance and save $24
or $149. But then the public would not be scammed by those massive
profit margins. They myth must live on to save bud’s job.

If MOVs are inside appliances, then nobody needs a plug-in
protector. Just another reason why plug-in protectors are so
ineffective. Just answer question I keep asking and you pretend it
was never asked.

We install a protector for no damage even during a direct lightning
strike. Yes, that means a direct lightning strike and even a
protector is not damaged. No earth ground means no effective
protection. Even every bud citation say shows why. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground which is why the OP must inspect
and probably upgrade his earthing.

On Page 42 Figure 8 – why even install the plug-in protector? Why
was the TV 8000 volts destroyed if MOVs are routinely installed in
TVs? Because the MOVs are not there. Because the MOVs in that power
strip protector did the exact same thing that MOV would do inside a
TV.

Every location that can never have damage, instead, locates those
MOVs to be as close as possible to earth ground. That distance
between the MOV and electronics means even better protection.

So where is that plug-in (MOV) protector spec that claims
protection? Cannot be provided? Or course not. Plug-in protector
manufacturers will not claim protection. But selling the scam sure is
profitable.

On May 1, 12:15 pm, bud-- wrote:
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Cut and paste the same half truths. Post insults. And still no
manufacturer spec that even claims that protection. No wonder telcos
all over the world waste no money on bud's products.

Page 42 Figure 8 - a surge protector was so effective as to earth
that surge 8000 volts through the adjacent TV? bud calls that
protection! He pretends Page 42 Figure 8 does not exist. And
pretends that Martzloff does not define the same damage in his 1994
IEEE paper:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

bud will repost the same half truths repeatedly because sale
promoters are taught to always post the last word. bud must keep
posting. With profits so obscene, even I would do what bud does.

bud will not answer the OP's problem. Plug-in protectors don't need
earth ground to magically stop what three miles of sky could not. The
OP should start an examination of the earth ground system or upgrade
earth ground to meet and exceed post 1990 code requirements (details
posted previously). If the existing system cannot be inspected, then
best is to install a new earthing system so that all incoming
utilities make the same short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to
that electrode system.

bud's protectors don't need no ground. Their few hundred joules
will magically make hundreds of thousands of joules surges disappear.
Or his new claim. The protector only absorbs one or two joules.
Funny. One or two joules means protection inside every appliance
makes that surge irrelevant. Why spend so much money on a protector
when one or two joules cannot harm anything?

Earth ground is essential so that surge protectors can do what the
NIST, IEEE , telcos, US Air Force, munitions dumps, etc require - a
short connection to divert surge energy harmlessly into earth. How
curious. That is what every telco does everywhere in the world to not
have damage. Telcos don't waste money on what bud sells. After all,
telcos first demand specifications. bud cannot provide any
specifications. Where are bud's specs that claim that protection?

.. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground ... as was
true 100 years ago and is true anywhere that surge damage cannot
occur. bud claims his plug-in protectors magically stop what three
miles of sky could not. A sales promoter will say anything to close
the deal.

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.

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

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.

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".

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--

westom wrote:
On May 1, 12:15 pm, bud-- wrote:
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Cut and paste the same half truths.

w believes that the IEEE and NIST guides are half truths.

Post insults.

w is insulted by the IEEE and NIST guides.

And still no
manufacturer spec that even claims that protection.

The lie repeated.

No wonder telcos
all over the world waste no money on bud's products.

You mean a telco switch?
That is high amp?
And hard wired?
And that has thousands of phone wires that would have to go through a
suppressor?

And they aren't "my products".

Page 42 Figure 8 - a surge protector was so effective as to earth
that surge 8000 volts through the adjacent TV?

Another lie repeated.

And
pretends that Martzloff does not define the same damage in his 1994
IEEE paper:

Martzloff said:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."

Poor w has to twist what sources really say to protect his religious
belief in earthing.

bud will repost the same half truths repeatedly

w has repeated the lies above repeatedly.

bud will not answer the OP's problem.

The OPs problem was grounding outlets.
I provided an answer.
w has not.

w dragged the thread into his religious crusade against plug-in
suppressors.

The
OP should start an examination of the earth ground system

The OP did not have a problem with the earthing of his power system.

Their few hundred joules
will magically make hundreds of thousands of joules surges disappear.

The village idiot ignores Martzloff's technical paper, which I summarized.
Just like he ignores everything that conflicts with his religious belief
in earthing.

Earth ground is essential

Everyone is in favor of earthing.
The question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE
and the NIST say they are.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground

Ho-hum - the religious belief in earthing.

Ho-hum - still no source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do
NOT work.

Ho-hum - 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?

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

--
bud--