My wife is a big fan of the "Holmes on Homes" show (which is actually
pretty good). They go around fixing messes previous contractors have
made of house construction/renovation jobs. They regularly install whole
house surge arrestors on the breaker panels when they re-wire a place.

We've been thinking of getting one installed, so I did a little research.
Leviton seems to be the biggest vendor in the US. They have an
interesting dodge, which is a surge arrestor that goes in series with
electric meter, inside the metter housing. In my case, this is outside
of the house, which means if it turns into a fireball, it probably won't
do a lot of damage. I also like the idea of stopping the surge as early
in the wiring as possible.

http://www.levitonproducts.com/catal..._50240-MSA.htm

I've got a query in to see if it will fit in just any old meter housing,
and how it compares with some of their breaker panel add-ons. Other than
having to deal with the electric company to replace the seal on the meter
housing, this thing looks like a snap (literally) to install. The cost of
the suppressor is about the same for either approach, but the electrician
should be able to install the meter version in considerably less than
half the time.

Doug White

On Mar 21, 7:05 am, cncmillgil wrote:
How bout a surge from downed power lines? Ours got knocked down from
ice on trees falling on the main lines into the house 4am Christmas
eve. Started a fire (12" flames) on the Belkin UL approved spike/
surge protector right next to the christmas tree & plasma TV! Could
never get an answer as to why this happened. Knocked out a couple
other surge strips including a plug in CO2 detector.
Thank god thats all that happened.

A friend suffered a 33,000 volt fault to the local distribution. As
a result, hundreds of electric meters were blown from their pans. At
least 100 clear plastic meter covers in pieces 10 meters from the pan.

Many neighbors suffered damaged electronics and protectors similar
to yours. Fortunately, no fires. At least one neighbor had a
destroyed 20 amp circuit breaker.

But my friend knows someone who knows this stuff. He only had a
'whole house' protector installed. Therefore he had no damage other
than an exploded meter. Even the 'whole house' protector remained
functional.

Just another reason why informed consumers earth one 'whole house'
protector and do not made money on plug-in protectors. That Belkin
does not even claim protection in its numeric specs.

BTW, electric company was not responsible for any damage (as
expected). Many electric customers had their meter pans completely
replaced due to the explosive power in that 33,000 volt fault.

On Mar 21, 4:34 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
I posted links to photos of telco cards with rows of MOVs, yet he
claims they don't exist. He is just a brain dead troll like Cliff, and
The_Mangled_Toad.

That is not what I said. I said those are not MOVs. MOVs have
excessive capacitance. Telcos use a different device that does not
have that excessive capacitance. Please read what was posted. You
got caught lying elsewhere. So everything from you is only an attack.

Any protection that might work adjacent to electronics is already
inside electronics.

Informed consumers dissipate energy so that surges are not even
inside the building.

On Mar 22, 7:31 pm, Doug White wrote:
We've been thinking of getting one installed, so I did a little research.
Leviton seems to be the biggest vendor in the US. They have an
interesting dodge, which is a surge arrestor that goes in series with
electric meter, inside the metter housing. In my case, this is outside
of the house, which means if it turns into a fireball, it probably won't
do a lot of damage.

That Belkin did what plug-in protectors do too often. Threaten
human life. Any protector that fails during a surge was ineffective -
grossly undersized for that surge. The Leviton and 'whole house'
protectors from so many other companies much earth a direct lightning
strike - and remain functional.

A direct lightning strike is typically 20,000 amps. Therefore the
minimally sized 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. 50,000 amps
without failure.

The most rare of surges is 100,000 amps. An IEEE paper demonstrates
what happens when that 100,000 lightning strike hits the utility power
wire. Maybe 40,000 amps attempts to enter the home. (the IEEE
picture assumes the 'primary' surge protection system is also properly
installed).

Only more responsible companies sell 'whole house' protectors. Not
in the list are APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster. Companies that
sell protectors for real world protection include Leviton, Square D,
General Electric, Intermatic, Keison, and Siemens. An effective
Cutler-Hammer solution sells in Lowes and Home Depot for less than
$50.

And again, no protector is protection - despite what others have
posted. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. Always.
Either the protector makes an always required short (ie 'less than 10
foot') connection to earth ground. Or that surge will hunt for earth
ground destructively via appliances.

Bud has kindly provided the IEEE citation that shows same. See:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
On page 42 Figure 8 - the surge energy was permitted inside a
building. Since he was only using plug-in protectors, then the surge
found earth ground 8,000 volts destructively via the adjacent TV.
That is what protectors do. Earth a surge harmlessly outside the
building or destructively inside. Page 42 Figure 8 is only what that
Belkin can do.

All appliances already contain any protection that will work adjacent
to the appliance. Your concern is the rare surge that will overwhelm
internal appliance protection (ie my friend's 33,000 volt wire
dropping on local distribution). Any potentially destructive surge
earthed without entering a building will not go hunting 8000 volts
destructively via appliances - page 42 figure 8.

The only thing that makes a protector effective is its earth
ground. Therefore any money wasted on plug-in protectors is better
spent upgrading earth ground. Protection is always about where energy
dissipates - which is why earthing must meet and exceed post 1990
National Electrical code. Which is why informed homeowners upgrade
what dissipates energy harmlessly outside the building.

This is true of every protector. Why a 'whole house' protector is so
effective and why that Belkin does not even claim effective protection
in its specs. This: No earth ground means no effective protection.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Protection is
always about where that energy dissipates – earth ground.

westom wrote:

On Mar 21, 4:34 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
I posted links to photos of telco cards with rows of MOVs, yet he
claims they don't exist. He is just a brain dead troll like Cliff, and
The_Mangled_Toad.

That is not what I said. I said those are not MOVs. MOVs have
excessive capacitance. Telcos use a different device that does not
have that excessive capacitance. Please read what was posted. You
got caught lying elsewhere. So everything from you is only an attack.


I posted links to datasheets that said they were MOVs designed for
telecom service, and had some of the boards in my hands to read the part
numbers. Since that doesn't agree with your ignorant jihad, you ignored
them.


Any protection that might work adjacent to electronics is already
inside electronics.

Informed consumers dissipate energy so that surges are not even
inside the building.


--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

On Mar 21, 12:41 pm, wrote:
As far as lightning protection, they'll do part of that, up to the
energy rating. Which is why you need the tiered approach.

In professional papers, tiering is not about protectors. Tiering is
about the only system component that dissipates the energy. Every
protection layer is defined by that component ALWAYS required in each
protection layer - the single point earth ground. The only item that
dissipates that energy. Every protection ‘tier’ is defined only by
the earth ground. Any protector without earthing does not ‘tiering’.

A residential 'whole house' protector is discussed. But that entire
protection “layer” is defined by what the protector connects to -
earth ground. Homeowners should also inspect their 'primary' surge
protection system. That is the other protection “layer”:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Protectors that do not even claim protection in their numeric specs
(ie that Belkin) will not discuss earthing. They hope you ‘assume’ a
protector magically makes energy disappear. The NIST (US government
research agency) citation provided by Bud is quite blunt about what an
effective protector must do:
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.

What happens if the protector does not make that short (ie 'less than
10 foot') connection to earth? That energy must dissipate
somewhere? Bud’s IEEE citation – page 42 Figure 8 – shows where that
energy dissipates: 8000 volts destructively via nearby appliances.
Either that energy is earthed. Or that energy will hunt for earth
ground inside the building destructively via appliances. Both IEEE
and NIST make that point.

I am being kind. I have only called them ineffective. NIST is
blunter about what a protector without earthing does:
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.

See those pictures of the Belkin posted elsewhere? It even
threatened human life. And the NIST also describes plug-in protectors
are useless:
... can be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Only more responsible companies sell effective protectors. With an
always required, dedicated wire to make a short connection to earth.
Responsible companies including General Electric, Leviton, Intermatic,
Siemens, Square D, and even the Cutler-Hammer solution that sells in
Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. In every case, an effective
protector has a wire to dissipate energy harmlessly into earth. Plug-
in protectors do not – are not part of a ‘tiered’ solution. Without
earthing (ie plug-in protectors), "The best surge protection in the
world can be useless if grounding is not done properly." Could they
be any blunter? Protection is always about where energy dissipates.
Each protection layer is defined by what provides protection – the
single point earth ground.

Secondary protection is earthing at the service entrance. Primary
protection is earthing by the utility. Each protection layer is about
where energy dissipates – not by some high profit box that somehow
makes energy magically disappear.

On Mar 21, 7:50*pm, Cliff
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:20:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
That isn't correct. *The main function of a surge protector is to
shunt the current to ground.

* Ground schmound.
* The ground could be the hot wire.
* Or not at all involved in the surge.
--
Cliff

Idiot

On Mar 22, 6:33*pm, Jon Elson wrote:
wrote:
The power spikes can come from anywhere. I personally experienced
equipment destroying spikes that came from the telephone wires. A
construction company was excavating very deeply for a sewer pumping
station near my office. Somehow they connected 220 volts to the buried
telephone cable. The power went through the local phone company
junction box and into our phone system and fax machine. The surge
protectors immediately absorbed all the power they could and produced
smoke. Then the power continued on to burn out circuit boards in the
equipment.

I have a fairly expensive business phone system in my house, central
control box and stations here and there. *So, I made my own protector.
I used a 10 Ohm 1 Watt film resistor in series with each incoming phone
wire, and then connected to a 3-terminal gas tube arrestor. *The idea is
the film resistors blow like ultra-fast fuses during a severe surge,
allowing the gas tube to handle what got through before. *This has
worked well, I've never had any damage to the phone system, but the DSL
modems I used to use got blitzed a couple times. *The resistors did get
popped a couple times, too. *I don't think you can get this kind of
phone wire arrestor anywhere as a complete unit, except maybe from a
telephone physical plant supplier. *The gas tubes can be bought from
Digi-Key and similar electronics distributors.

I have had some other gear damaged, but due to the nature of the
equipment, I am pretty sure it was NOT from anything coming in the power
lines. *Wires running from one end of your house to the other can
develop thousands of Volts when there is a nearby lightning strike, due
to magnetic induction. *I've had some stuff in my home burglar alarm
damaged, as well as an ethernet port on a computer. *(Most of this
damage all happened in one incident, nearby lightning strike.)

So, I'm not so sure that power line protectors will actually prevent a
whole lot of damage.

Jon

You don't have to be so sure. The IEEE and NIST are though.

On Mar 23, 1:48*pm, bud-- wrote:
Doug White wrote:

We've been thinking of getting one installed, so I did a little research. *
Leviton seems to be the biggest vendor in the US. *They have an
interesting dodge, which is a surge arrestor that goes in series with
electric meter, inside the metter housing. *In my case, this is outside
of the house, which means if it turns into a fireball, it probably won't
do a lot of damage. *I also like the idea of stopping the surge as early
in the wiring as possible.

*http://www.levitonproducts.com/catal..._50240-MSA.htm

You would, in all probability, have to have permission from the utility
to use it.

The clamp voltage is 800V. According to Martzloff (was the NIST surge
expert) equipment can withstand about 600-800V surges. The 800V rating
sounds way too high to me. (On the other hand, the 330V rating on most
suppressors may be lower than needed.) It is a "nominal" clamp voltage.
With a strong surge the voltage is forced upward from 800V.

If there is a strong surge, the path to earth is through the neutral
from meter can to service panel, through the required neutral-ground
bond (almost always in the service panel), and to the earthing
electrode. *The voltage drop on the neutral will add to the clamp
voltage. A surge is a very short duration event, so the current
components are relatively high frequency, so the inductance of the wire
is more important than the resistance. See the discussion on lead length
in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 22. In effect you are adding the
neutral wire to the lead length.

I would rather have a suppressor where I have total control over it
(service panel).

Another factor, many of the surge protectors intended for panel use
have indicator lights that show the status. Some even have audible
alarms to indicate that the protection has taken a hit and is no
longer functioning. If it's buried in the meter housing, you have no
way of knowing if it is still functioning.

westom wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:31 pm, Doug White wrote:
We've been thinking of getting one installed, so I did a little research.
Leviton seems to be the biggest vendor in the US. They have an
interesting dodge, which is a surge arrestor that goes in series with
electric meter, inside the metter housing. In my case, this is outside
of the house, which means if it turns into a fireball, it probably won't
do a lot of damage.

That Belkin did what plug-in protectors do too often. Threaten
human life. Any protector that fails during a surge was ineffective -
grossly undersized for that surge.

The only Belkin that failed in this thread was from crossed power lines.
It was not a surge, and neither service panel or plug-in suppressors are
designed to protect from the much longer duration events caused by
crossed power lines.

The Leviton and 'whole house'
protectors from so many other companies much earth a direct lightning
strike - and remain functional.

Service panel suppressors are a real 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. To limit the voltage you need a *short*
wire connecting the cable/phone entrance protectors to the ground at the
power service.

(And as someone pointed out, a near lightning strike can then induce
voltages with interior house wiring acting as an antenna.)

Much of the equipment damaged has power plus phone/cable connections,
and is likely damaged by high voltage between power and signal wires.

The most rare of surges is 100,000 amps. An IEEE paper demonstrates
what happens when that 100,000 lightning strike hits the utility power
wire. Maybe 40,000 amps attempts to enter the home. (the IEEE
picture assumes the 'primary' surge protection system is also properly
installed).

Martzloff (NIST surge expert) has a paper (probably what w refers to)
that has a 100,000A lightning strike to a utility pole behind a house
with typical urban overhead distribution. The calculated average
probability of a worse event is once in 8,000 years. There are multiple
paths to earth so 'only' 40,000A is directed to the house on the service
neutral. Service neutrals in the US are connected to ground at the
service panel and connected to the earthing electrode(s) dissipating
that energy. Some of the energy is transferred to the hot wires and the
max probable surge current per wire is 10,000A (also in the IEEE guide
pdf page 27).

Incidentally, at about 6,000V from hot bus to enclosure (ground) there
is arc-over. After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of
volts. If there is no service panel suppressor this is what dissipates
most of the energy on the hot wires. It is one of the reasons so little
energy is dissipated in MOVs in plug-in suppressors.

Companies that
sell protectors for real world protection include Leviton, Square D,
General Electric, Intermatic, Keison, and Siemens. An effective
Cutler-Hammer solution sells in Lowes and Home Depot for less than
$50.

Repeating traders response to w's repeated drivel - the "real world
protection" all these manufacturers (except SquareD) sell includes
plug-in suppressors. And the $50 devices do not meet w's minimum specs.

For its best service panel suppressor SquareD says "electronic equipment
may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at
the point of use", and the connected equipment warranty is double when
"used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device."

Bud has kindly provided the IEEE citation that shows same. See:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
On page 42 Figure 8 - the surge energy was permitted inside a
building. Since he was only using plug-in protectors, then the surge
found earth ground 8,000 volts destructively via the adjacent TV.
That is what protectors do.

If poor w could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE
guide says in this example:

- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service
that is far too long (as in my last post). 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.

Lacking any source that supports his drivel w tries to twist an example
in the IEEE guide that shows how plug-in suppressors provide protection.

Your concern is the rare surge that will overwhelm
internal appliance protection (ie my friend's 33,000 volt wire
dropping on local distribution).

Neither plug-in or service panel suppressors will reliably protect from
crossed power lines. This is idiocy.

Provide a spec from any manufacturer that claims such protection.

Therefore any money wasted on plug-in protectors is better
spent upgrading earth ground.

Martzloff 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." That is - short ground wires
from the telephone and cable entry protectors (and dish...) to the
ground at the power service.

Belkin does not even claim effective protection
in its specs.

Complete nonsense.

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

w's religious mantras protects him from disturbing thoughts (aka reality).
Still not explained - why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get
hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

Everyone is in favor of earthing. The IEEE guide explains, for anyone
who can think, that plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by
earthing and that earthing occurs elsewhere.

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

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

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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel
suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

--
bud--

westom wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:05 am, cncmillgil wrote:
How bout a surge from downed power lines? Ours got knocked down from
ice on trees falling on the main lines into the house 4am Christmas
eve. Started a fire (12" flames) on the Belkin UL approved spike/
surge protector right next to the christmas tree & plasma TV! Could
never get an answer as to why this happened. Knocked out a couple
other surge strips including a plug in CO2 detector.
Thank god thats all that happened.

But my friend knows someone who knows this stuff. He only had a
'whole house' protector installed. Therefore he had no damage other
than an exploded meter. Even the 'whole house' protector remained
functional.

I have not noticed that w is a reliable source of what happens. Perhaps
you could provide a newspaper article?

MOVs are the basic protection components for virtually all power circuit
surge suppressors. A MOV that can easily handle a 33,000V surge for 100
microseconds is rapidly burned out by a crossed power line ("temporary
overvoltage", not a "surge"). Suggesting that a service panel suppressor
will provide protection is idiocy.

Provide a spec from any manufacturer that their suppressor protects from
crossed power lines.

--
bud--

Doug White wrote:

We've been thinking of getting one installed, so I did a little research.
Leviton seems to be the biggest vendor in the US. They have an
interesting dodge, which is a surge arrestor that goes in series with
electric meter, inside the metter housing. In my case, this is outside
of the house, which means if it turns into a fireball, it probably won't
do a lot of damage. I also like the idea of stopping the surge as early
in the wiring as possible.

http://www.levitonproducts.com/catal..._50240-MSA.htm

You would, in all probability, have to have permission from the utility
to use it.

The clamp voltage is 800V. According to Martzloff (was the NIST surge
expert) equipment can withstand about 600-800V surges. The 800V rating
sounds way too high to me. (On the other hand, the 330V rating on most
suppressors may be lower than needed.) It is a "nominal" clamp voltage.
With a strong surge the voltage is forced upward from 800V.

If there is a strong surge, the path to earth is through the neutral
from meter can to service panel, through the required neutral-ground
bond (almost always in the service panel), and to the earthing
electrode. The voltage drop on the neutral will add to the clamp
voltage. A surge is a very short duration event, so the current
components are relatively high frequency, so the inductance of the wire
is more important than the resistance. See the discussion on lead length
in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 22. In effect you are adding the
neutral wire to the lead length.

I would rather have a suppressor where I have total control over it
(service panel).

Probability of catastrophic failure is very low. Martzloff has written
"in fact, the major cause of [suppressor] failures is a temporary
overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge." A cause of
"Temporary overvoltage" would be crossed power wires, as elsewhere in
this thread.

--
bud--

On Mar 21, 8:47*am, wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:09*pm, westom wrote:

On Mar 20, 12:26 pm, "hr(bob) "
wrote: They are not capacitors. *They are electronic-semiconductor devices
that are open circuit until some voltage threshold is exceeded, then
they act like a very low resistance to try to limit the voltage. *The
limiting factor is the amount of power the devices can withstand
before exploding due to the heat they generate when acting as s short
circuit. *I don't know a lot more than that, except that they are
usually rated in Joules of energy they can dissipate before blowing
up.

Well, we all knew this was coming. *Mention surge protector, and like
a bolt of lightning from the sky, here comes WTom.





* Either you buy a protector that will somehow absorb all that
energy. *Or you buy protectors based upon how it was done even 100
years ago. *Protection is always about where energy dissipated.
Either that energy remains outside the building. *Or that energy is
inside hunting for earth ground destructively via appliances.
Adjacent protectors simply give surges even more potentially
destructive paths through adjacent appliances.

* An effective surge protector means even the protector remains
functional. *A minimal 'whole house' protector starts at 50,000 amps.
Direct lightning strikes are typically 20,000 amps. *Yes, the
protector must be sized to even earth direct lightning strikes and
remain functional. *And that means the connection to earth must be
additional requirements - short ('less than 10 feet) to earth, no
sharp wire bends, no splices. all protectors meet at (again 'less than
10 feet to') the single point earth ground, ground wires separated
from other non-ground wires, not inside metallic conduit, etc.

* Protection is always about where energy dissipates. *If those
hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate in earth, then no damage.
This is how it was done even 100 years ago.

So far, I would mostly agree. *Except the part about a direct
lightning strike. * A direct lightning strike is mostly a red herring,
because even if the lightning bolt hit the service cable near the
building, it's highly unlikely that the path of all or even most of
the lightning is going to be through the service wire and into the
surge protector. * Far more likely, it will arc with most of the
energy finding ground outside the building before it ever gets to the
surge protector at the panel or meter.



* But somehow a magic box next to the appliance will absorb all those
joules?

Here;s where Tom likes to start arguing against strawmans and the rant
about plug-in surge protectors begins. * *The actual question was
about a whole house surge protector.



Tom does not know anything about surge protection so he is trying to
bluff his way through. he thinks he is appearing intelligent but most
readers can see through his misinformation. It is too bad that he
feels the need to rant about things he knows absolutely nothing
about. Perhaps he could make a more informed opinion on the type of
beer he is drinking.

westom wrote:
On Mar 21, 12:41 pm, wrote:
As far as lightning protection, they'll do part of that, up to the
energy rating. Which is why you need the tiered approach.

In professional papers, tiering is not about protectors.

From surge expert Martzloff:
"Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
appliances [electronic equipment] within the house."
Kinda sounds like tiering to me.

Protectors that do not even claim protection in their numeric specs
(ie that Belkin)

Complete nonsense.

will not discuss earthing.

Because anyone with minimal intelligence can read in the IEEE guide that
plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing.

They hope you ‘assume’ a
protector magically makes energy disappear.

Only magic if your religious blinders prevent you from understanding how
suppressors work.

The NIST (US government
research agency) citation provided by Bud is quite blunt about what an
effective protector must do:

Ho-hum. w just repeats the same distortions. Repeating:
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’s IEEE citation – page 42 Figure 8 – shows where that
energy dissipates:

The lie repeated.

Responsible companies including General Electric, Leviton, Intermatic,
Siemens, Square D, and even the Cutler-Hammer solution that sells in
Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.

Ho hum - 3rd repetition. Repeating:
Being responsible companies, all these manufacturers (except SquareD)
sell includes plug-in suppressors. And the $50 devices do not meet w's
minimum specs.

Plug-
in protectors do not – are not part of a ‘tiered’ solution.

Martzloff says they a
"Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
[electronic equipment] within the house."

Each protection layer is defined by what provides protection – the
single point earth ground.

And the required religious mantra.
Still not explained - why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get
hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel
suppressor) "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--

wrote:

Ferrite rings are for EMI, so the buzz in the box stays there and not
in your radio or stereo. Switching power supplies can generate a
whole lot of hash and that's the type that's gradually replacing the
old-syle wall warts. The ring is acting as a choke for RF, also
generated by the computer itself. Different deal than surge
protection, but also needed these days.

Look up "surgistor" or MOV, that's what's in those surge protectors.
They're rated in joules, the amount of energy they can pass. The
higher, the better, and more costly they get. The better surge
protector strips will say how much energy they can handle on the
package. I assume the panel versions do the same.

There is (in the US) apparently no definition for how joules are
measured. As a result, some manufacturers measure jules in a deceptive
manner, which puts honest manufacturers at a disadvantage. As a result,
some good manufacturers are not providing joule ratings anymore. Instead
they give surge current ratings (which are comparable).

The IEEE guide warns against comparing devices based on joule ratings
unless the test method is the same. Too bad - I like joule ratings.

What none of the
ad copy says is that MOVs have a distinct lifespan. They WILL wear
out after snubbing "x" number of spikes and become useless.

Certainly can happen.

In my first post I quoted an investigation by Martzloff that found only
about 35J max at a plug-in suppressor with even the strongest surge that
can be reasonably expected on power wires. One reason is arc-over at the
service panel. The other is the impedance of branch circuit wiring. Both
are mentioned in other posts. If the branch circuit is very short -
outlet under the panel, the energy can be higher.

I recently bought a major brand plug-in suppressor (about $30) with
ratings of 590J and 30,000A per MOV, 1770J and 90,000A total. I don't
expect the suppressor will ever fail. The manufacturer apparently
doesn't either - there is a connected equipment warranty.

The current ratings, 30,000A, are in some ways odd - there is no way you
could get that current to the suppressor. It is higher than what will
come in on the service. But the high current ratings go along with the
high joule ratings.

The joule rating for a MOV is the single event energy hit the MOV can
take and be at the defined end of life (but still functional). If you
look at MOV ratings curves, you find that if the individual energy hits
are a small fraction of the rated energy, the cumulative energy rating
is far higher than the single event rating. If my 590J MOVs only see 35J
or far less events, the cumulative energy rating will be far over 590J -
another reason for connected equipment warranties.

High ratings are useful in the same way for service panel suppressors.

Some of
the power strip units tie the neon switch light to the MOVs. If no
light when switched on, the MOVs have expired and it's time for a new
strip. But nobody tells the consumer about it. So there's a whole
lot of dead protectors out there that are just power strips now.
Usually there's MOVs between ground and each supply wire and between
the supply wires. Not rocket science.

The normal failure mode for MOVs is to start to conduct at lower
voltages until they conduct at normal voltages and have thermal runaway.
Any suppressor you buy in the US should be listed under the appropriate
UL listing - 1449. UL1449 has required, since 1998, a thermal disconnect
for overheating MOVs.

For plug-in suppressors, the IEEE guide goes on at length about how the
protected load can be connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected
when they fail, or can be connected across the incoming line. In the
former case, the load is 'protected' even if the MOV fails. Another
reason why manufacturers can have protected equipment warranties.

As far as lightning protection, they'll do part of that, up to the
energy rating. Which is why you need the tiered approach. Arrestors
on the line in, surge protectors on the panel and on each high-value
electronic item.

A good idea, particularly in high risk areas. It is suggested by
Martzloff in another post.
Plug-in suppressors are particularly useful if the protected equipment
has both power and phone/cable connections - equipment that is
particularly at risk.

Note that all interconnected equipment has to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor and external wires (including phone and cable) have
to go through the suppressor. I think this is not as well understood as
it should be.

The max probable current on hot service wires is 10,000A. Service panel
suppressors with much higher ratings are readily available.

My sister is always getting hits, they blow the
phones off the walls, but since she's gotten decent surge protectors,
those get fried instead of the computer or video equipment. They have
to be replaced, but she gets the sort with insurance attached, so not
that costly.

Phones off the wall sounds odd. I would look at the phone entrance
protector and length of ground wires from phone and cable entrance
protectors to the ground at the power service. The entrance protector
and earthing should protect the phone (using US installation practice).
And look at earthing system?

There are other approaches to surge and spike protection, an MG set is
pretty much immune to any such up to direct lightning strikes. A
ferro-resonant transformer used to be a big part of the innards of one
line of power conditioners, pretty much immune to spikes, but the
transformer itself was noisier than a whole switch yard. Had one in a
corner of the shop for a mini-computer, had to go outside to talk to
anyone. None of those will snub spikes on LAN, phone or video cables,
for that you have to go to power strips with built-in protection or
stand-alones.

All good information.
Never been around a ferro-resonant transformer - interesting.

--
bud--

wrote in
:

On Mar 23, 1:48*pm, bud-- wrote:
Doug White wrote:

We've been thinking of getting one installed, so I did a little
researc
h. *
Leviton seems to be the biggest vendor in the US. *They have an
interesting dodge, which is a surge arrestor that goes in series
with electric meter, inside the metter housing. *In my case, this
is outsi
de
of the house, which means if it turns into a fireball, it probably
won'
t
do a lot of damage. *I also like the idea of stopping the surge as
ea
rly
in the wiring as possible.

*http://www.levitonproducts.com/catal..._50240-MSA.htm

You would, in all probability, have to have permission from the
utility to use it.

The clamp voltage is 800V. According to Martzloff (was the NIST surge
expert) equipment can withstand about 600-800V surges. The 800V
rating sounds way too high to me. (On the other hand, the 330V rating
on most suppressors may be lower than needed.) It is a "nominal"
clamp voltage. With a strong surge the voltage is forced upward from
800V.

If there is a strong surge, the path to earth is through the neutral
from meter can to service panel, through the required neutral-ground
bond (almost always in the service panel), and to the earthing
electrode. *The voltage drop on the neutral will add to the clamp
voltage. A surge is a very short duration event, so the current
components are relatively high frequency, so the inductance of the
wire is more important than the resistance. See the discussion on
lead length in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 22. In effect you are
adding the neutral wire to the lead length.

I would rather have a suppressor where I have total control over it
(service panel).

Another factor, many of the surge protectors intended for panel use
have indicator lights that show the status. Some even have audible
alarms to indicate that the protection has taken a hit and is no
longer functioning. If it's buried in the meter housing, you have no
way of knowing if it is still functioning.

The unit has two LEDs to indicate the condition of the device. I am
goign to call Leviton support tomorrow to try to get more info. They
don't have teh mnaul/instructions on-line.

Doug White

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:23:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Mar 21, 7:50*pm, Cliff
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:20:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
That isn't correct. *The main function of a surge protector is to
shunt the current to ground.

* Ground schmound.
* The ground could be the hot wire.
* Or not at all involved in the surge.
--
Cliff

Idiot

You know nothing about it, eh?
--
Cliff

On Mar 23, 6:05 pm, Doug White wrote:
The unit has two LEDs to indicate the condition of the device. I am
goign to call Leviton support tomorrow to try to get more info. They
don't have teh mnaul/instructions on-line.

Those lights only report a failure that must not happen if the
protector is properly sized. Normal failure mode for any protector
means it only degrades. Those lights do not report that normal
failure mode.

For most any location, a 50,000 amp protector will last at least ten
years - in most cases many decades longer. If your neighborhood has a
high number of failures, then a 100,000 amp protector will
exponentially increase that protector life expectancy. And will
significantly decrease its clamping voltages.

Of course, a most critical part is the only part that actually
provides protection. That is the earth ground. Every protection
layer is defined by the only 'system' component that provides
protection. Earth ground. How to make that 'whole house' protector
more effective? Upgrade the earthing. Every protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. Single point earthing with a
connection as short as possible, no sharp wire bends, ground wire
separated from other non-grounding wires, wire not inside metallic
conduit, etc. All essential to permit a protector to earth direct
lightning strikes without damage – even to the protector.

On Mar 24, 11:53*pm, westom wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:05 pm, Doug White wrote:

The unit has two LEDs to indicate the condition of the device. *I am
goign to call Leviton support tomorrow to try to get more info. *They
don't have teh mnaul/instructions on-line.

* Those lights only report a failure that must not happen if the
protector is properly sized. *Normal failure mode for any protector
means it only degrades. *Those lights do not report that normal
failure mode.

More convoluded logic. If the indicator lights are useless, then why
are they included on many of the surge protectors provided by the
company Wtom recommends?





* For most any location, a 50,000 amp protector will last at least ten
years - in most cases many decades longer.

We're still waiting for a link to where you can buy one of those 50KA
ones at HD for $50 like you claimed.




*If your neighborhood has a
high number of failures, then a 100,000 amp protector will
exponentially increase that protector life expectancy. *And will
significantly decrease its clamping voltages.

* Of course, a most critical part is the only part that actually
provides protection. *That is the earth ground. *Every protection
layer is defined by the only 'system' component that provides
protection. *Earth ground. *How to make that 'whole house' protector
more effective? Upgrade the earthing. *Every protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.

Then explain this. You have claimed many times that all appliances
and electronics have built-in surge protection. How can that be,
since they have no direct short connection to earth ground, which you
claim renders protection impossible? Do they come with a mythical
earth ground inside? And how can the same type of device that is
used in common electronics for surge protection, ie MOV, work inside
the home electronics, but according to you, be totally ineffective if
used outside the electronics in the form of plug-in surge protector?
Not only do they also use MOVs, but those in $20 plug-in surge
protectors have significantly LARGER capacity MOVs than the ones
inside the $500 home entertainment electronics. How are airplanes
protected from surges without an earth ground?

The contradictions here are enough to make your head explode.



*Single point earthing with a
connection as short as possible, no sharp wire bends, ground wire
separated from other non-grounding wires, wire not inside metallic
conduit, etc. *All essential to permit a protector to earth direct
lightning strikes without damage – even to the protector.

In
,
westom typed:
On Mar 23, 6:05 pm, Doug White wrote:
The unit has two LEDs to indicate the condition of the
device. I am goign to call Leviton support tomorrow to
try to get more info. They don't have teh
mnaul/instructions on-line.

Those lights only report a failure that must not happen
if the protector is properly sized. Normal failure mode
for any protector means it only degrades. Those lights do
not report that normal failure mode.

For most any location, a 50,000 amp protector will last
at least ten years - in most cases many decades longer. If
your neighborhood has a high number of failures, then a
100,000 amp protector will exponentially increase that
protector life expectancy. And will significantly decrease
its clamping voltages.

Of course, a most critical part is the only part that
actually provides protection. That is the earth ground.
Every protection layer is defined by the only 'system'
component that provides protection. Earth ground. How to
make that 'whole house' protector more effective? Upgrade
the earthing. Every protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Single point earthing with a connection as
short as possible, no sharp wire bends, ground wire
separated from other non-grounding wires, wire not inside
metallic conduit, etc. All essential to permit a protector
to earth direct lightning strikes without damage  even to
the protector.

Wow; that's quite a mess of unverifiable and misleading
misinformation! Earth ground is NOT the most critical
protection object. It isn't even necessary for protection from
longitudinal surges, in fact. This is a mess of guesses with
an attempt to hopefully sound like you know what you're
talking about, but you don't.

Beware that poster's advice.

HTH,

Twayne`

Twayne wrote:

In
,
westom typed:
On Mar 23, 6:05 pm, Doug White wrote:
The unit has two LEDs to indicate the condition of the
device. I am goign to call Leviton support tomorrow to
try to get more info. They don't have teh
mnaul/instructions on-line.

Those lights only report a failure that must not happen
if the protector is properly sized. Normal failure mode
for any protector means it only degrades. Those lights do
not report that normal failure mode.

For most any location, a 50,000 amp protector will last
at least ten years - in most cases many decades longer. If
your neighborhood has a high number of failures, then a
100,000 amp protector will exponentially increase that
protector life expectancy. And will significantly decrease
its clamping voltages.

Of course, a most critical part is the only part that
actually provides protection. That is the earth ground.
Every protection layer is defined by the only 'system'
component that provides protection. Earth ground. How to
make that 'whole house' protector more effective? Upgrade
the earthing. Every protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Single point earthing with a connection as
short as possible, no sharp wire bends, ground wire
separated from other non-grounding wires, wire not inside
metallic conduit, etc. All essential to permit a protector
to earth direct lightning strikes without damage  even to
the protector.

Wow; that's quite a mess of unverifiable and misleading
misinformation! Earth ground is NOT the most critical
protection object. It isn't even necessary for protection from
longitudinal surges, in fact. This is a mess of guesses with
an attempt to hopefully sound like you know what you're
talking about, but you don't.

Beware that poster's advice.


He's been trolling with the same crap for years.


--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

On Mar 25, 1:43 pm, "Twayne" wrote:
Earth ground is NOT the most critical protection object. It
isn't even necessary for protection from longitudinal surges,
in fact. This is a mess of guesses with an attempt to
hopefully sound like you know what you're
talking about, but you don't.

So why do all telcos require their protectors connected from each
wire to earth? Why does every telco bring every wire into underground
vaults where a protector connects within feet to earth - for
longitudinal mode transients? And why has this been the routine
solution for over 100 years?

Why does the NIST say grounding is required for protection?
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest" it.
What these protective devices do is neither suppress nor
arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can
do no harm.

So the NIST also has it wrong?

IEEE Standard 141 (Red Book) says:
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process
of interception of lightning produced surges, diverting them to
ground, and by altering their associated wave shapes.

What is lightning? A longitudinal mode surge. So the NIST is
wrong. The IEEE is wrong. The US Air Force is also wrong when
protector are required to located as close to where wires enter the
building and earth ground?

Instead of posted anything technical, you also post insults? Of
course. That is what the less technically informed do. Where is this
IEEE paper that shows longitudinal mode protection is without earth
ground? Every paper I read is always about earth ground. Even this
professional's application note says every wire must connect to earth
before entering the building. But since you know better, then the
professional is lying? We should believe you only because you can
insult?

From Compliance Engineering entitled "Resettable Circuit Protection
for Telecom Network Equipment" is:
In longitudinal mode, the overstress is present between tip-and-
ring
and ground. Longitudinal overstresses are the most common and
occur during power induction or power crosses in which both
conductors have the same exposure to the hazard. Lightning-induced
overstresses are typically longitudinal

IOW longitudinal surges seek earth ground destructively via
electronics. How do you stop it? Do you magically stop what even
three miles of sky could not? Of course not. Do you magically make
that energy just disappear? Of course not. The routine solution for
over 100 years is to do even what Ben Franklin lightning rods do.
Connect the longitudinal mode surge to earth. The energy is not
inside the building hunting for earth ground destructively via
appliances.

The NIST says how critical earth ground is:
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.

So, if earth ground is not important, then Franklin was wrong to
earth his lightning rods? That is what you have posted. Franklin's
lightning rods work because lightning - a longitudinal mode surge - is
connected to earth. - where energy is harmlessly dissipated. Where is
that energy absorbed if not in earth? Please, show me this magic
device that can stop what three miles of sky cannot. That will
magically absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? When surge
protection is always about earth ground, how do you know they are
wrong? Because you can post venom?

Why do the same technically naive naysayers routinely post so nasty?

On Mar 25, 1:43 pm, "Twayne" wrote:
Earth ground is NOT the most critical protection object. It
isn't even necessary for protection from longitudinal surges,
in fact. This is a mess of guesses with an attempt to
hopefully sound like you know what you're
talking about, but you don't.

So why do all telcos require their protectors connected from each
wire to earth? Why does every telco bring every wire into underground
vaults where a protector connects within feet to earth - for
longitudinal mode transients? And why has this been the routine
solution for over 100 years?

Why does the NIST say grounding is required for protection?
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest" it.
What these protective devices do is neither suppress nor
arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can
do no harm.

So the NIST also has it wrong?

IEEE Standard 141 (Red Book) says:
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process
of interception of lightning produced surges, diverting them to
ground, and by altering their associated wave shapes.

What is lightning? A longitudinal mode surge. So the NIST is
wrong. The IEEE is wrong. The US Air Force is also wrong when
protector are required to located as close to where wires enter the
building and earth ground?

Instead of posted anything technical, you also post insults? Of
course. That is what the less technically informed do. Where is this
IEEE paper that shows longitudinal mode protection is without earth
ground? Every paper I read is always about earth ground. Even this
professional's application note says every wire must connect to earth
before entering the building. But since you know better, then the
professional is lying? We should believe you only because you can
insult?

From Compliance Engineering entitled "Resettable Circuit Protection
for Telecom Network Equipment" is:
In longitudinal mode, the overstress is present between tip-and-
ring
and ground. Longitudinal overstresses are the most common and
occur during power induction or power crosses in which both
conductors have the same exposure to the hazard. Lightning-induced
overstresses are typically longitudinal

IOW longitudinal surges seek earth ground destructively via
electronics. How do you stop it? Do you magically stop what even
three miles of sky could not? Of course not. Do you magically make
that energy just disappear? Of course not. The routine solution for
over 100 years is to do even what Ben Franklin lightning rods do.
Connect the longitudinal mode surge to earth. The energy is not
inside the building hunting for earth ground destructively via
appliances.

The NIST says how critical earth ground is:
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.

So, if earth ground is not important, then Franklin was wrong to
earth his lightning rods? That is what you have posted. Franklin's
lightning rods work because lightning - a longitudinal mode surge - is
connected to earth. - where energy is harmlessly dissipated. Where is
that energy absorbed if not in earth? Please, show me this magic
device that can stop what three miles of sky cannot. That will
magically absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? When surge
protection is always about earth ground, how do you know they are
wrong? Because you can post venom? Why is earthing for surge routine
in every facility that can never suffer damage? And why has that
always been the solution for over 100 years? Clearly they must be
wrong because you can insult.

On Mar 25, 1:43 pm, "Twayne" wrote:
Wow; that's quite a mess of unverifiable and misleading
misinformation! Earth ground is NOT the most critical
protection object. It isn't even necessary for protection from
longitudinal surges, in fact.

From Dr Ronald B Standler in his book "Protection of Electronic
Circuits from Overvoltages":
It should be noted that if the grounding wire is disconnected, an SPD
will provide no protection against common-mode overvoltages. The
grounding conductor is more than a safety feature; it is absolutely
essential for the protection against common-mode overvoltages.

Longitudinal is also called common-mode. Maybe Dr Standler should
consult you? Myths must be better information. Grounding is not
necessary for effective protection? Plug-in protectors without ground
are effective because retail salesmen and hearsay says so.

westom wrote:

Why does the NIST say grounding is required for protection?

Everyone is in favor of earthing.

The NEC requires the service neutral to be bonded to the ground and both
be connected to earthing electrode(s). (That directly earths any surge
on the neutral.)

The NEC requires an entrance protector for telephone wires, with the
voltage on the wires clamped to a terminal connected to the earthing system.

The NEC requires a ground block on cable and antenna coax where the
cable enters the building with the ground block connected to the
earthing system. (That does not limit the voltage on the center conductor.)

That is the required wiring under the NEC.

With a strong surge current to earth, the building "ground" system can
rise thousands of volts above "absolute" earth potential. Much of the
protection is actually that the power, cable, phone, ... wires rise
together. (If phone and cable entry protectors are not near the power
service and connected with short ground wires that can not be assured.)
According to Martzloff, improving the interconnections between systems
is more important than reducing the resistance to earth.

Where is this
IEEE paper that shows longitudinal mode protection is without earth
ground?

Still not explained - why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get
hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

Every paper I read is always about earth ground.

Your religious blinders do not allow you to read anything in the papers
that contradicts your religious belief in earthing.

Like a Martzloff paper that says "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]." You have often
try to make the paper say the opposite of what Martzaloff was saying.

Even this
professional's application note says every wire must connect to earth
before entering the building.

That certainly solves almost all of the surge problem.

But it is hard to get power, telephone and cable through the earthed wires.

Do you magically stop what even
three miles of sky could not? Of course not.

w thinks plug-in suppressors are "magic" because his religious blinders
prevent him from reading the clear explanation in the IEEE guide of how
they work.

Do you magically make
that energy just disappear? Of course not.

Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread)
but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

The NIST says how critical earth ground is:

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

When surge
protection is always about earth ground

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.


Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel
suppressor) "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 Mar 25, 1:43 pm, "Twayne" wrote:
Earth ground is NOT the most critical protection object. It
isn't even necessary for protection from longitudinal surges,
in fact. This is a mess of guesses with an attempt to
hopefully sound like you know what you're
talking about, but you don't.

So why do all telcos require their protectors connected from each
wire to earth? Why does every telco bring every wire into underground
vaults where a protector connects within feet to earth - for
longitudinal mode transients? And why has this been the routine
solution for over 100 years?


Why is so much of the Teleco plant fiber optic, that requires no
electrical protection?


--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

On Mar 26, 4:55 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Why is so much of the Teleco plant fiber optic, that requires no
electrical protection?

So again you cannot answer the question. So as a hate monger, you
must change the subject. Every CO has copper wires. Every CO has
typically 100 surges with each thunderstorm. And damage must never
happen. Why? They don't waste money on plug-in protectors. They
spend massively less money for the protectors that actually do
protection. Every incoming wire in every cable connects short to
earth ground via a 'whole house' protector. Because that is the
protection that even makes direct lightning strikes irrelevant. That
is how it was done 100 years ago. That is based even in the
principles demonstrated by Franklin in 1752.

Rather than admit reality, you would throw out fiber optics as a
solution? What is the best solution per dollar? What makes even
direct lightning strikes to utility wires irrelevant? A 'whole house'
protector connected to the only thing always necessary for surge
protection - earth ground.

What defines every protection layer? Each layer always has one
thing - single point earth ground. What must magic box protectors
avoid discussing to protect obscene profit margins? Earth ground.

Spin and accusation does not change reality. COs suffer hundreds of
surges without damage - because the technology was even understood 100
years ago.. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

On Mar 26, 12:32 am, bud-- wrote:
Do you magically make that energy just disappear? Of course not.

Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread)
but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

According to Bud, that energy magically disappears. Clamping
somehow make energy disappear? He says that often. Meanwhile the
NIST (his own citation) says what happens when the protector cannot
connect that energy to earth:
The best surge protection in the world can be useless if
grounding is not done properly.

Or Dr Martzloff who discusses the same problems in his 1994 paper.
A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even cause damage to
nearby appliances. It is the first conclusion in that IEEE paper:
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.

Each layer of protection is defined by the only item that makes
surge energy harmless. Protection is always about where energy
dissipated. And why more responsible companies sell the 'whole house'
protector. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. An
effective protector also costs tens or 100 times less money per
protected appliance.

On Mar 26, 5:21*pm, westom wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:32 am, bud-- wrote:

Do you magically make that energy just disappear? *Of course not.

Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread)
but *w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

* According to Bud, that energy magically disappears. *Clamping
somehow make energy disappear? *He says that often. *Meanwhile the
NIST (his own citation) says what happens when the protector cannot
connect that energy to earth:

*The best surge protection in the world can be useless if
grounding is not done properly.

* Or Dr Martzloff who discusses the same problems in his 1994 paper.
A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even cause damage to
nearby appliances. *It is the first conclusion in that IEEE paper:

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..

* Each layer of protection is defined by the only item that makes
surge energy harmless. *Protection is always about where energy
dissipated. *And why more responsible companies sell the 'whole house'
protector.

Most of those same responsible companies also sell plug-in surge
protectors too. Some recommend using them in conjunction with their
whole house surge protectors. So there goes that arguement. One
would think W would have learned to stop bringing this bogus argument
up since it's so easy to demolish, but here we go again.



*A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. *An
effective protector also costs tens or 100 times less money per
protected appliance.

Still waiting for an explanation of the obvious contradiction here.
W claims that all electronics and appliances have built-in surge
protection and that it works. Now, if surge protection is only
possible with a short direct connection to earth ground, how is that
protection possible? And how is it that the same components, ie MOVs
inside a TV can be effective, yet even larger ones in a plug-in surge
protector next to the TV are ineffective?

How is it that electrical systems on airplanes are protected from
surges? Where is their earth ground?

And if W knows so much about surge protection, where is the link to
that 50KA rated whole house surge protector for less than $50 that he
claimed is available at HD?

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:11:49 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Mar 26, 12:32 am, bud-- wrote:
Do you magically make that energy just disappear? Of course not.

Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread)
but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

According to Bud, that energy magically disappears. Clamping
somehow make energy disappear?

eliminates the difference in potential

It should be be equipted with a spark gap for high voltage high
current lightening strikes plus MOVs to get the voltage down to
relatively safe levels. The energy is mostly disappated in the MOV
and into the wiring and ground.

westom wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:55 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Why is so much of the Teleco plant fiber optic, that requires no
electrical protection?

So again you cannot answer the question.

What question? Why you keep trolling with your outdated and wrong
ideas?

So as a hate monger, you
must change the subject. Every CO has copper wires.

No. Not even at power line is copper these days. The local
switching center is all fiber optic, and the power lines are aluminum.

Every CO has
typically 100 surges with each thunderstorm.

Try to prove that. You can't, because it's another factoid you
created with a box of Ex-lax.

And damage must never happen.


Yet it used to, before they started the conversion to fiber optics.
It happened quite often. That's why they were constantly reparing their
physical plant. The old leaded cable had to be pressurized with dry
nitrogen to keep water out when lighting pinholed the lead. They used
to monitor the tanks, and if too much was leaking, they used an
ultrasonic sniffer to find the pinholes.


Why? They don't waste money on plug-in protectors. They
spend massively less money for the protectors that actually do
protection.

Sigh. They did use plug in protectors on the phone lines. EDCO made
them, but the market is a lot smaller these days. Now they are sold for
PBX systems.


Every incoming wire in every cable connects short to
earth ground via a 'whole house' protector.


So, they have surge suppressors on optical cable?


Because that is the
protection that even makes direct lightning strikes irrelevant.


Bull****. A direct strike can blow a hole through a building, take
out the switching system for the plant's 48 VC power system, and leave
it a smoking wreck.

That is how it was done 100 years ago.


Sure it was.

That is based even in the
principles demonstrated by Franklin in 1752.


Yawn. Franklin was an early, "Hold my beer" type. He was an ignorant
bumbler who was lucky he didn't die from his belief that lightning could
be harnessed to provide electricity.

Florida was switching to fiber optic trunklines and smaller switch
centers 20+ years ago. My copper phone line runs less than one mile
before it is converted to fiber, combined with a lot of other lines,
then routed to a switching center about the size of a single car
garage. You're at least 30 years behind the times, and ignorant as
ever.

Keep posting your nonsense. Everyone can see you for what you are.


Hate mongers? Yes, I despise liars and idiots with nothing but
flimsy straw men.


Rather than admit reality, you would throw out fiber optics as a
solution? What is the best solution per dollar? What makes even
direct lightning strikes to utility wires irrelevant? A 'whole house'
protector connected to the only thing always necessary for surge
protection - earth ground.


You wouldn't know reality if it hit you in the face.


What defines every protection layer? Each layer always has one
thing - single point earth ground. What must magic box protectors
avoid discussing to protect obscene profit margins? Earth ground.

Yawn. Keep spouting your narrow minded message. BTW, have you ever
heard of EDCO? Friends of mine just bought their factory building to
move their manufacturing business.


Spin and accusation does not change reality.

The stop spinning and accusing.

COs suffer hundreds of
surges without damage - because the technology was even understood 100
years ago.. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground.


Sigh. The classic CO is a dinosaur. Technology has passed it by.
Learn what is really going on so you don't keep embarrassing yourself.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

http://www.flickr.com/photos/materrell/

westom wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:32 am, bud-- wrote:
Do you magically make that energy just disappear? Of course not.
Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread)
but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

According to Bud, that energy magically disappears. Clamping
somehow make energy disappear? He says that often.

I don't ever say that, but the village idiot just can't understand. To
poor w it is "magic".

As clearly explained in the IEEE guide, plug-in suppressors work
primarily by limiting the voltage on all wires to the ground at the
suppressor. The voltage between wires going to the protected equipment
is safe for the protected equipment. The guide says earthing occurs
elsewhere. Because that violates w's religious belief in earthing his
religious blinders filter out the words.

For power service wires, any surge energy on the neutral is directly
earthed by the required N-G-earthing electrode bond in all US services.
If there is a large surge on hot wires, at about 6,000V there is
arc-over from service panel buses to the enclosure, which is connected
to the earthing electrode. After the arc is established the voltage is
hundreds of volts. That dumps most of the surge energy to earth. This
has been explained numerous times but is filtered off by poor w's
religious blinders.

Martzloff (who was the NIST surge guru) has a technical paper that looks
at the energy that reaches the MOV in a plug-in suppressor. Even with
the maximum probable surge on power wires the energy is 35J or less. In
most cases it was 1J or less. The reason is arc-over, above. Also that a
surge is, by definition, a very short event. That means the current
components are relatively high frequency. So the inductance of the
branch circuit wires is more important than the resistance. The
impedance of the wire is to high to allow much energy reach the plug-in
suppressor. This has also often been explained, but the village idiot
just ignores it.

Just as I wrote in my last post - "where the energy goes has often been
explained (including previously in this thread) but w's religious
blinders prevent the words from penetrating." Poor w just keeps
repeating his lies.


Meanwhile the
NIST (his own citation) says what happens when the protector cannot
connect that energy to earth:

And poor w still can't read what the NIST guide says about plug-in
suppressors:
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.

Or Dr Martzloff who discusses the same problems in his 1994 paper.
A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even cause damage to
nearby appliances. It is the first conclusion in that IEEE paper:
Conclusion:

This is exactly the paper I cited in my previous post - w's religious
blinders prevent him from reading anything that conflicts with his
religious belief in earthing.

At the time of the 1994 paper "multiport" surge suppressors were just a
concept or very new. The *whole point* of the paper was that multiport
suppressors are effective.

w always ignores that Martzloff said in the paper:
"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, a Martzloff coauthor, 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 [multiport] plug-in
protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."

And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Each layer of protection is defined by the only item that makes
surge energy harmless.

"Layers of protection" are described by Martzloff:
"Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service
entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive
appliances [electronic equipment] within the house."

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

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

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Why doesn't anyone in the known universe agree with you w???

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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel
suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?
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 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:15:28 -0600, bud-- wrote:

westom wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:32 am, bud-- wrote:
Do you magically make that energy just disappear? Of course not.
Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread)
but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

According to Bud, that energy magically disappears. Clamping
somehow make energy disappear? He says that often.

I don't ever say that, but the village idiot just can't understand. To
poor w it is "magic".

Idiot 'w' thinks his boat will sinks the first time a wave hits.

snipped stuff 'w' will never understand

" wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:15:28 -0600, bud-- wrote:

westom wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:32 am, bud-- wrote:
Do you magically make that energy just disappear? Of course not.
Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread)
but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

According to Bud, that energy magically disappears. Clamping
somehow make energy disappear? He says that often.

I don't ever say that, but the village idiot just can't understand. To
poor w it is "magic".

Idiot 'w' thinks his boat will sinks the first time a wave hits.


We can only hope that he's right about that.


--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

On Mar 26, 6:35 pm, wrote:
Most of those same responsible companies also sell plug-in surge
protectors too. Some recommend using them in conjunction with their
whole house surge protectors.

And so would I. If you are so misinformed as to spend up to $150
for an APC or Monster protector, well, GE sells the equivalent product
for $15.

Meanwhile the IEEE puts numbers to this stuff. A properly earthed
'whole house' protector is 99.5 to 99.9% protection. That 'whole
house' protector required to even protect those ineffective plug-in
protectors. Plug-in protectors that will magically absorb hundreds of
thousands of joules can create these scary pictures (and the fire
marshal who describes why the threat exists:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
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
http://www.pennsburgfireco.com/fullstory.php?58339

To avoid that failure, the informed consumer earths one 'whole
house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Then those $40
and $150 per appliance protectors for the additional 0.2% protection
might do something useful.

But then the IEEE says what a properly earthed 'whole house'
protector does:
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 ...

Why spend $60 per appliance for a plug-in protector once the
effective solution is installed? The 'whole house' protector is
required to even protect plug-in protectors. But that would not reap
obscene profits for the less responsible companies that only sell the
ineffective protector. So myths are promoted. Discussion of earth
ground avoided. Insult posted by the usual nay sayers.

The informed homeowner installed a ‘whole house’ protector for about
$1 per protected appliance. Then may spend tens of times more money
for a plug-in protector to add the maybe 0.2% additional protection so
that the surge maybe once every 6000 years might be further
constrained. Plug-in protectors without a ‘whole house’ protector do
not even claim to provide the necessary protection. But companies
such as Monster must forget that. A $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts and expensive paint selling for $150. Profit is its
real purpose.

Doug White wrote in
:

My wife is a big fan of the "Holmes on Homes" show (which is actually
pretty good). They go around fixing messes previous contractors have
made of house construction/renovation jobs. They regularly install
whole house surge arrestors on the breaker panels when they re-wire a
place.

We've been thinking of getting one installed, so I did a little
research. Leviton seems to be the biggest vendor in the US. They
have an interesting dodge, which is a surge arrestor that goes in
series with electric meter, inside the metter housing. In my case,
this is outside of the house, which means if it turns into a fireball,
it probably won't do a lot of damage. I also like the idea of
stopping the surge as early in the wiring as possible.

http://www.levitonproducts.com/catal..._50240-MSA.htm

I've got a query in to see if it will fit in just any old meter
housing, and how it compares with some of their breaker panel add-ons.
Other than having to deal with the electric company to replace the
seal on the meter housing, this thing looks like a snap (literally) to
install. The cost of the suppressor is about the same for either
approach, but the electrician should be able to install the meter
version in considerably less than half the time.

I finally got an installation manual from Leviton for the the meter
housing unit. It is only rated fror 200 amps IF it is installed in a
specific Murray housing. I went out and checked, and our housing isn't a
Murray. I also studied my meter, and it is one of the new electronic
remote read units. It fills up inside of the clear cover much more than
an old fashioned meter, and I doubt it would work with the Leviton even
if we had the right housing.

So, I'm back to finding a good unit to attach to the breaker panel. It's
too bad, because the earth ground has a more direct connection to the
meter box than to the breaker panel.

Doug White

On Mar 26, 9:32 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
westom wrote:
Every CO has typically 100 surges with each thunderstorm.

Try to prove that. You can't, because it's another factoid you created with
a box of Ex-lax.

So many spiteful accusations. So little knowledge by first
learning. He constantly posts accusations without learning the
technology. So again, more facts without insult from one who learned
this stuff before posting.

In the late 1950s, Bodle and Gresh monitored surges throughout the
country. For example, over a six month period in Mt Freedom NJ, that
one cable produced 1120 longitudinal surges during 36 thunderstorms.
About 31 surges per thunderstorm per cable.

In the mid 1975, Carroll and Miller repeated this study. Over six
months in Washington CT, 1230 surges were recorded during 23
thunderstorms on that one cable. Average was 53 surges per storm per
cable. Some storms exceeded 100 surges per storm. One storm created
so many surges that the system ran out of film.

But Michael Terrell just knows this cannot be. He feels. Therefore
he knows. Which is what so many do to know plug-in protectors are
effective and to justify personal attacks. Clearly those papers in
the Bell System Journals were wasting time. They too should feel
rather than waste money on research. Clearly feeling justifies
malevolence.

Back to reality. COs suffer hundreds of surges without damage -
because that technology was understood even 100 years ago when a
carbon block protector was first patented about 1880. Protection is
always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.

westom wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:32 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
westom wrote:
Every CO has typically 100 surges with each thunderstorm.

Try to prove that. You can't, because it's another factoid you created with
a box of Ex-lax.

So many spiteful accusations. So little knowledge by first
learning. He constantly posts accusations without learning the
technology. So again, more facts without insult from one who learned
this stuff before posting.

In the late 1950s, Bodle and Gresh monitored surges throughout the
country. For example, over a six month period in Mt Freedom NJ, that
one cable produced 1120 longitudinal surges during 36 thunderstorms.
About 31 surges per thunderstorm per cable.

In the mid 1975, Carroll and Miller repeated this study. Over six
months in Washington CT, 1230 surges were recorded during 23
thunderstorms on that one cable. Average was 53 surges per storm per
cable. Some storms exceeded 100 surges per storm. One storm created
so many surges that the system ran out of film.

But Michael Terrell just knows this cannot be. He feels. Therefore
he knows. Which is what so many do to know plug-in protectors are
effective and to justify personal attacks. Clearly those papers in
the Bell System Journals were wasting time. They too should feel
rather than waste money on research. Clearly feeling justifies
malevolence.

Back to reality. COs suffer hundreds of surges without damage -
because that technology was understood even 100 years ago when a
carbon block protector was first patented about 1880. Protection is
always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.


Yawn. So many lies, so few neurons.


--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

On Mar 27, 7:58*pm, westom wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:35 pm, wrote:

Most of those same responsible companies also sell plug-in surge
protectors too. *Some recommend using them in conjunction with their
whole house surge protectors.

* And so would I. *If you are so misinformed as to spend up to $150
for an APC or Monster protector, well, GE sells the equivalent product
for $15.

Square the above statement with calling those manufacturers
"responsible". How can they be responsible if they are selling
dangerous and ineffective products?





* Meanwhile the IEEE puts numbers to this stuff. * A properly earthed
'whole house' protector is 99.5 to 99.9% protection. *That 'whole
house' protector required to even protect those ineffective plug-in
protectors. *Plug-in protectors that will magically absorb hundreds of
thousands of joules can create these scary pictures (and the fire
marshal who describes why the threat exists:
*http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
*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
*http://www.pennsburgfireco.com/fullstory.php?58339

* To avoid that failure, the informed consumer earths one 'whole
house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance. *Then those $40
and $150 per appliance protectors for the additional 0.2% protection
might do something useful.


WoW ! Stop the presses. This is something new. Previously W had
always argued that plug-in surge protectors were totally useless or
actually dangerous because protection without a short direct
connection to earth ground was impossible. Now for the first time,
it seems protection is not impossible, but instead has an
effectiveness of .2%. At least that's a step in the right direction.

Also, obvioulsy you are grossly misinformed about plug-in surge
protectors because good ones can be had for a lot less than $40 to
$150 each, let alone per appliance. I have a $25 one sitting
behind my TV that has 6 pieces of electronics plugged into it. That
works out to $4 an appliance, not $40.

Now lets deal with the frightnening pictures. My W you have been
busy searching haven't you? Here's the most serious problem. How
many photos could one find of TVs, toasters, stereos or other common
appliances that also had failures that caused fires? How many plug-
in surge protectors are there that are in use? Probably in the
hundreds of millions. So, to find 6 that caught fire isn't something
extraordinary. Note that at least some of those are identified as
older ones that do not have thermal protection that all new ones
must. The rest we don't know how old they were or if they had thermal
protection, which they probably did not.

And these units are being indicted for having MOVs. Guess what else
has MOVs that are even smaller? Your TV, radio, stereo, dishwasher,
oven, etc. So, again, how is it that according to W if you put an
MOV inside a plug-in surge protector it's a fire hazard. But put a
smaller one inside a plastic radio and it becomes effective
protection?

Also notice that NONE of the links said that plug-in surge protectors
are ineffective, dangerous and should be avoided. Some of them even
talked about how to use them.





* But then the IEEE says what a properly earthed 'whole house'
protector does:

Yes and they also show plug-in surge protectors used too and recommend
them. You can't have it both ways.



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 ...

* Why spend $60 per appliance for a plug-in protector once the
effective solution is installed? *The 'whole house' protector is
required to even protect plug-in protectors. But that would not reap
obscene profits for the less responsible companies that only sell the
ineffective protector. *So myths are promoted.

Yes, like W's myth that these companies are "less responsible", while
we've shown him over and over again that the major electric gear
companies he calls "responsible" also sell them.






*Discussion of earth
ground avoided. *Insult posted by the usual nay sayers.

Yes, avoided indeed, because W can't explain the contradictions:

How is it that MOVs inside an appliance provide surge protection that
W says works, yet MOVs located in a plug-in are not effective?

How is it that MOVs inside a whole house surge protector are peachy
keen? They too are subject to the same failure modes after a surge
that is too large or after repeated smaller surges. Many of them are
also housed in plastic.

If a direct connection to earth ground is the only way to achieve
protection, how are electronics in airplanes protected?




* The informed homeowner installed a ‘whole house’ protector for about
$1 per protected appliance. *Then may spend tens of times more money
for a plug-in protector to add the maybe 0.2% additional protection so
that the surge maybe once every 6000 years might be further
constrained. *

Please provide a reference for those numbers, pulled out of thin
air. While you're at it, please provide a reference that agrees with
you that plug-in protectors are totally ineffective. Or is it now
that they are not totally ineffective, just .2% effective?


Also, perhaps you forgot, but I haven't. Still waiting for your link
to HD for their 50KA rated surge protector for less than $50.

westom wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:35 pm, wrote:
Most of those same responsible companies also sell plug-in surge
protectors too. Some recommend using them in conjunction with their
whole house surge protectors.

Meanwhile the IEEE puts numbers to this stuff. A properly earthed
'whole house' protector is 99.5 to 99.9% protection.

Not provided - quote or context.

As can be seen from other quotes from w, he completely twists what
sources says.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
But 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.

That 'whole
house' protector required to even protect those ineffective plug-in
protectors.

More complete idiocy. Cite a source. (Hallucinations don't count.)

Plug-in protectors that will magically absorb hundreds of
thousands of joules

Continued idiocy.

can create these scary pictures (and the fire
marshal who describes why the threat exists:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w is unable 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.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

The informed homeowner installed a ‘whole house’ protector for about
$1 per protected appliance.

If you count light bulbs as appliances.

Plug-in protectors without a ‘whole house’ protector do
not even claim to provide the necessary protection.

Continued idiocy.

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

A $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts

I recently bought a major brand plug-in suppressor with ratings of 590J
and 30,000A per MOV, 1770J and 90,000A total. Provide a source for a
30,000A/590J MOV for ten cents.


You forgot "a protector is only as effective as its earth ground." Are
you feeling OK?


Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still never answered - simple questions:
Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
- 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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel
suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?
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--