On 9/9/2013 2:29 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 09/09/2013 03:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:17:35 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I was an electrician before retiring

Question:

Outside, just under my meter is a single 200 Amp breaker saying
"service disconnect".

Will turning off the breaker kill the power inside my electrical
panel? Meaning; the panel is not hot and "SAFER" to work when I add a
whole house breaker surge protector?


Most likely yes. 200A is a typical value for a modern house's service,
and "just under the meter" makes sense. I'm assuming that the box in
which it is contained is locked however?

Easy to verify if you have a meter or a 240V test light. Kill the 200A
breaker and then check a 240V breaker's output while it is still in the
"on" position, check each terminal of same breaker for 120VAC to ground,
and also the two big conductors (will be 240v between both, 120V each to
ground) coming in from outside for voltage - carefully; those are either
disconnected by the 200A breaker or completely unfused and coming
straight from the meter. If the latter they definitely deserve some
respect; inadvertantly touching them can have negative consequences up
to and including death. Not meaning to frighten, but the service
entrance and everything associated with it deserves a healthy amount of
respect and caution.

I actually like the remotely mounted service disconnect as in a typical
panel with the main breaker at the top of the panel, fishing cables down
through a knockout in the top of the panel can still put your hands
close to those big service entrance conductors which in that kind of
setup are still hot even with the main breaker turned off; the only way
to kill those is to pull the meter which means calling the power company
and setting up an appointment... I've worked in those, but that doesn't
mean I liked it and wasn't extremely cautious. Nothing like setting the
nut on a Romex clamp and realizing that if you slip the wrong way, your
screwdriver is going to go straight into a piece of 4/0 aluminum that
has 120VAC on it and that YOU will limit the amount of current that flows.

nate


I've always treated and worked on all electrical panels as though they
were energized, trust no one. On more than one occasion I got a tingle
because Billy Bob the drunktrician switched the neutral instead of the
hot wire. When I was installing and hooking up 4,160 volt transformers
for the underground electrical system I helped build on an island, my
superintendent borrowed an old wooden hot stick from the power plant to
plug the energized cables into the transformer. When his hair stood on
end and he almost wet his pants, he decided to send me after the new
fiberglass hot stick at our warehouse. If you will just treat all the
electrical systems you work on as though they were energized, it's good
practice for when you come across one that is. Oh yea, you trust but
verify that ALL the power is off if you're doing major work. O_o

TDD

"Oren" wrote in message
...
Most likely yes. 200A is a typical value for a modern house's service,
and "just under the meter" makes sense. I'm assuming that the box in
which it is contained is locked however?


No the box is not locked. It could be done though. But the box is like
a typical outside waterproof box for outside outlets. The cover could
be knocked off to get to the breaker so I think a lock is kind of
useless.

They are often designed so that you can put a lock on them. The reason is
to lock it off so that it can not be turned on (without defeating something)
while you are working on the wiring.

At work it was mandentory that we put a lock on breakers and a tag with our
name on it. Only the person that had his name on the tag could remove it.
If that person was not at the plant, we had to contact them if possiable and
even then it took a piece of paper signed by 3 differant people. Had to
have that same paper even if like in one case the person had been retired
several years.

I know an electrician that pulled the meter to a church to do some wiring.
After a while he got shocked.

Seems that a power company man came by and saw the meter on the ground and
plugged it back in.
He should have put a note or tag on the meter to help keep that from
hapning.

On 09/09/2013 05:13 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
Most likely yes. 200A is a typical value for a modern house's service,
and "just under the meter" makes sense. I'm assuming that the box in
which it is contained is locked however?


No the box is not locked. It could be done though. But the box is like
a typical outside waterproof box for outside outlets. The cover could
be knocked off to get to the breaker so I think a lock is kind of
useless.

They are often designed so that you can put a lock on them. The reason is
to lock it off so that it can not be turned on (without defeating something)
while you are working on the wiring.

And it cannot be manually turned OFF by a miscreant who's planning on
breaking in and wants to cut the power so your cordless phones etc.
don't work.

If you have cordless phones (and no cell, or live in an area with poor
cell service) it's good to make sure that you have at least one that is
corded and/or plugged into a UPS. Taking a look at where all your
utilities run into the house and making sure that a simple pair of
sidecutters can't leave you without communications is prudent IMHO.

No, I've never had a situation like that, but it is good to think ahead.

nate

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

On Monday, September 9, 2013 4:33:40 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:29:42 -0400, Nate Nagel

wrote:



On 09/09/2013 03:16 PM, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:17:35 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"

wrote:



I was an electrician before retiring



Question:



Outside, just under my meter is a single 200 Amp breaker saying

"service disconnect".



Will turning off the breaker kill the power inside my electrical

panel? Meaning; the panel is not hot and "SAFER" to work when I add a

whole house breaker surge protector?





Most likely yes. 200A is a typical value for a modern house's service,

and "just under the meter" makes sense. I'm assuming that the box in

which it is contained is locked however?





No the box is not locked. It could be done though. But the box is like

a typical outside waterproof box for outside outlets. The cover could

be knocked off to get to the breaker so I think a lock is kind of

useless.



A lock could keep some kids or other casual trouble maker
from screwing around and turning it off. Which would be real
bad if you were away in winter for a week.




Easy to verify if you have a meter or a 240V test light. Kill the 200A

breaker and then check a 240V breaker's output while it is still in the

"on" position, check each terminal of same breaker for 120VAC to ground,

and also the two big conductors (will be 240v between both, 120V each to

ground) coming in from outside for voltage - carefully; those are either

disconnected by the 200A breaker or completely unfused and coming

straight from the meter. If the latter they definitely deserve some

respect; inadvertantly touching them can have negative consequences up

to and including death. Not meaning to frighten, but the service

entrance and everything associated with it deserves a healthy amount of

respect and caution.





One thing I was taught as a young teen was that when working in a

breaker panel was to keep "one hand in your pocket".

Not very practical though. And probably not going to do a whole
lot of good if you're standing on a typical basement concrete floor.




Electricity does

frighten me because I 'can't see it'.



I actually like the remotely mounted service disconnect as in a typical

panel with the main breaker at the top of the panel, fishing cables down

through a knockout in the top of the panel can still put your hands

close to those big service entrance conductors which in that kind of

setup are still hot even with the main breaker turned off; the only way

to kill those is to pull the meter which means calling the power company

and setting up an appointment... I've worked in those, but that doesn't

mean I liked it and wasn't extremely cautious. Nothing like setting the

nut on a Romex clamp and realizing that if you slip the wrong way, your

screwdriver is going to go straight into a piece of 4/0 aluminum that

has 120VAC on it and that YOU will limit the amount of current that flows.



nate



I'll proceed with caution -- trust me. I've put in a double breaker

for a spa before and I sure was nervous about it with no main

disconnect or pulling the meter.

The panel didn't have a main breaker? Usually you have a
main breaker at the top and it's very obvious where the
incoming service wires connect to that breaker. Open it
and everything below it isn't energized. You just have to
watch out for where the service wires connect to the main
breaker terminals. I've seen some newer panels where
that area has it's own separate cover/shield so that you
can't touch anything before the main without taking off
that separate piece.

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:29:42 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 09/09/2013 03:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:17:35 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I was an electrician before retiring

Question:

Outside, just under my meter is a single 200 Amp breaker saying
"service disconnect".

Will turning off the breaker kill the power inside my electrical
panel? Meaning; the panel is not hot and "SAFER" to work when I add a
whole house breaker surge protector?


Most likely yes. 200A is a typical value for a modern house's service,
and "just under the meter" makes sense. I'm assuming that the box in
which it is contained is locked however?

Mine never have been.

Easy to verify if you have a meter or a 240V test light. Kill the 200A
breaker and then check a 240V breaker's output while it is still in the
"on" position, check each terminal of same breaker for 120VAC to ground,
and also the two big conductors (will be 240v between both, 120V each to
ground) coming in from outside for voltage - carefully; those are either
disconnected by the 200A breaker or completely unfused and coming
straight from the meter. If the latter they definitely deserve some
respect; inadvertantly touching them can have negative consequences up
to and including death. Not meaning to frighten, but the service
entrance and everything associated with it deserves a healthy amount of
respect and caution.

Just flip the switch and see if the lights still work. ;-)

I actually like the remotely mounted service disconnect as in a typical
panel with the main breaker at the top of the panel, fishing cables down
through a knockout in the top of the panel can still put your hands
close to those big service entrance conductors which in that kind of
setup are still hot even with the main breaker turned off; the only way
to kill those is to pull the meter which means calling the power company
and setting up an appointment... I've worked in those, but that doesn't
mean I liked it and wasn't extremely cautious. Nothing like setting the
nut on a Romex clamp and realizing that if you slip the wrong way, your
screwdriver is going to go straight into a piece of 4/0 aluminum that
has 120VAC on it and that YOU will limit the amount of current that flows.

Yeah, when I've had to do it, I've been able to wire in from the
bottom of the panel.

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:33:40 -0700, Oren wrote:

One thing I was taught as a young teen was that when working in a
breaker panel was to keep "one hand in your pocket". Electricity does
frighten me because I 'can't see it'.

When you can see it, it's too late. ;-)

On 9/9/2013 4:22 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 09/09/2013 05:13 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
Most likely yes. 200A is a typical value for a modern house's
service,
and "just under the meter" makes sense. I'm assuming that the box in
which it is contained is locked however?


No the box is not locked. It could be done though. But the box is like
a typical outside waterproof box for outside outlets. The cover could
be knocked off to get to the breaker so I think a lock is kind of
useless.

They are often designed so that you can put a lock on them. The
reason is
to lock it off so that it can not be turned on (without defeating
something)
while you are working on the wiring.

And it cannot be manually turned OFF by a miscreant who's planning on
breaking in and wants to cut the power so your cordless phones etc.
don't work.

If you have cordless phones (and no cell, or live in an area with poor
cell service) it's good to make sure that you have at least one that is
corded and/or plugged into a UPS. Taking a look at where all your
utilities run into the house and making sure that a simple pair of
sidecutters can't leave you without communications is prudent IMHO.

No, I've never had a situation like that, but it is good to think ahead.

nate


Cell system communication modems are a lot less expensive than they used
to be as a backup if the land line is cut. The are also alarm companies
that have proprietary radio links working on the two way radio bands.
I'm not sure of the cost of the cell system modems but I've been
installing wireless links in retail stores that allow the credit card
systems to operate if the T1 or internet connection goes down. It used
to be dial-up modems for the CC machines if the T1 failed
but technology marches on. I use VoIP and cellular for my phones and am
looking for a good VoIP provider that will allow the business to operate
the same way it does now with ringmaster for the three phone numbers in
the office which includes a fax machine. Roommate needs remote call
forwarding for the business phone while leaving the house phone and fax
machine working as they do now. ^_^

TDD

On Monday, September 9, 2013 4:33:40 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
One thing I was taught as a young teen was that when working in a
breaker panel was to keep "one hand in your pocket". Electricity does
frighten me because I 'can't see it'.

The 'one hand in a pocket' rule is good especially when working in tight spaces. I also use construction type gloves or playtex gloves if 'too many items' might result in a mistake. Of course sharp wires can still penetrate those gloves. A footnote necessary here because so many want to argue.

My preference is for cotton construction gloves that have plastic dots on the finger tips. So that even an inadvertent 'back of the hand' touch does not result in a shock.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:59:07 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2013 4:33:40 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
One thing I was taught as a young teen was that when working in a
breaker panel was to keep "one hand in your pocket". Electricity does
frighten me because I 'can't see it'.

The 'one hand in a pocket' rule is good especially when working in tight spaces.

Jesus, Jose' and Maria. We finally agree.

On 9/9/2013 11:17 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:59:07 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Monday, September 9, 2013 4:33:40 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
One thing I was taught as a young teen was that when working in
a breaker panel was to keep "one hand in your pocket".
Electricity does frighten me because I 'can't see it'.

The 'one hand in a pocket' rule is good especially when working in
tight spaces.

Jesus, Jose' and Maria. We finally agree.


When I worked out on construction sites in hot weather, I had to make
very sure my shirt tails were tucked in because I sweat like a
thunderstorm. On more than one occasion I got a tingle because my sweat
dampened shirt touched a ground. You could always tell where I'd been
working due to the puddle of sweat on the floor. I was very careful when
working on high voltage in a soaking wet condition. I kept a dry towel
around not for my face but to dry the hot stick used to manipulate the
plugs and switches. O_o

TDD

On 9/9/2013 10:04 AM, westom wrote:


Those public documents says something different from what others post here.
Do you trust the IEEE Guide? Or what others have misrepresented?

Anyone can read the surge guides (except westom) and find out who is right.

Simple questions that westom never answers:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example, page 33?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

For real science read the ~IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent
information on surge protection. And both say plug-in protectors are
effective.

On 9/9/2013 1:16 PM, Oren wrote:

Outside, just under my meter is a single 200 Amp breaker saying
"service disconnect".

Will turning off the breaker kill the power inside my electrical
panel? Meaning; the panel is not hot and "SAFER" to work when I add a
whole house breaker surge protector?

The preferred 'whole house' location is where the earthing electrode(s)
connect to the power system. That should be at the service disconnect,
which is the 200A breaker. But there is not an easy way to connect a
surge protector there. This may be a time where a surge protector from
the utility company is preferred. They mount between the meter and the
socket, which should be adjacent to the disconnect. Your utility may not
have them, and if they do there is likely a month charge.

At a "service panel" the neutral and ground are connected together.

The circuit breaker panel inside your house should be a "subpanel".
There should be separate neutral and ground bars. A surge protector then
needs 4 wires - hot, hot, neutral, ground. (A service panel only has 3 -
hot, hot, neutral/ground.).

Entry protectors for cable and phone (if any) connect to the earthing
system, which is connected to the 200A disconnect. With a strong surge
the voltage drop on the neutral and ground wires from the subpanel to
the outside disconnect are added to the voltage between power and
cable/phone wires. This can be significant - it is something like the
voltage in the IEEE surge guide, page 22, "Lead Length" (actually less
because the wires are bigger, but not a lot less). Devices connected
only to power are protected, but if there is also a connection to
cable/phone/?dish the device may be vulnerable. This is where the IEEE
guide example westom misrepresents says "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 12:16:23 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:17:35 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I was an electrician before retiring

Question:

Outside, just under my meter is a single 200 Amp breaker saying
"service disconnect".

Will turning off the breaker kill the power inside my electrical
panel? Meaning; the panel is not hot and "SAFER" to work when I add a
whole house breaker surge protector?

Thanks everyone for the replies and excellent advice and warnings.

My 200 Amp breaker - main disconnect at the meter; resembles this
photo, except the breaker is lower down one the meter box.

http://handymanhowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DSC03966.jpg

My plan is to use a SPD breaker in breaker panel in the garage. Dufas
pointed me in the correct direction for the Homelite brand.

I'll also add a lock at the meter breaker since it could easily be
turned off by the miscreants and stink-eyes.

Thanks again.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:20:44 -0600, bud--
wrote:

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

chuckle

I recall fuel trucks dragging chains for "earthling".

"Oren" wrote in message
...

I'll also add a lock at the meter breaker since it could easily be
turned off by the miscreants and stink-eyes.


You might want to check with someone up on the code before you put a lock to
lock on the breaker/disconnect that is outside the house.

I am thinking it was put on so the fire department could disconnect the
house from the power lines if it caught on fire. Could be wrong on that.

I dealt mostly in industry but for us, we could not lock a
breaker/disconnect on except maybe in rare cases.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:20:44 -0600, bud--
wrote:

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

chuckle

I recall fuel trucks dragging chains for "earthling".

That was to get rid of static electricity.

In hospital operating rooms the floor is made out of a material that will
conduct electricity to a small ammout. The chairs and other things have
special conductive rubber wheels and tips. Some of the items also have drag
chains.

All this is to cut down the chance of a static electricity spark. Some of
the gases used to put people to sleep is highly explosive, especially when
mixed with the high concentration of oxygen often used.

On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:30:28 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/9/2013 4:22 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 09/09/2013 05:13 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
Most likely yes. 200A is a typical value for a modern house's
service,
and "just under the meter" makes sense. I'm assuming that the box in
which it is contained is locked however?


No the box is not locked. It could be done though. But the box is like
a typical outside waterproof box for outside outlets. The cover could
be knocked off to get to the breaker so I think a lock is kind of
useless.

They are often designed so that you can put a lock on them. The
reason is
to lock it off so that it can not be turned on (without defeating
something)
while you are working on the wiring.

And it cannot be manually turned OFF by a miscreant who's planning on
breaking in and wants to cut the power so your cordless phones etc.
don't work.

If you have cordless phones (and no cell, or live in an area with poor
cell service) it's good to make sure that you have at least one that is
corded and/or plugged into a UPS. Taking a look at where all your
utilities run into the house and making sure that a simple pair of
sidecutters can't leave you without communications is prudent IMHO.

No, I've never had a situation like that, but it is good to think ahead.

nate


Cell system communication modems are a lot less expensive than they used
to be as a backup if the land line is cut. The are also alarm companies
that have proprietary radio links working on the two way radio bands.
I'm not sure of the cost of the cell system modems but I've been
installing wireless links in retail stores that allow the credit card
systems to operate if the T1 or internet connection goes down. It used
to be dial-up modems for the CC machines if the T1 failed
but technology marches on. I use VoIP and cellular for my phones and am
looking for a good VoIP provider that will allow the business to operate
the same way it does now with ringmaster for the three phone numbers in
the office which includes a fax machine. Roommate needs remote call
forwarding for the business phone while leaving the house phone and fax
machine working as they do now. ^_^

When I looked into it, cell based alarm systems were about $20/mo more
than landline or Internet connected systems. The cell companies don't
give away even the smallest bandwidth (SMS, for example).

On 9/10/2013 1:08 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
...

I'll also add a lock at the meter breaker since it could easily be
turned off by the miscreants and stink-eyes.


You might want to check with someone up on the code before you put a lock to
lock on the breaker/disconnect that is outside the house.

I am thinking it was put on so the fire department could disconnect the
house from the power lines if it caught on fire. Could be wrong on that.

I dealt mostly in industry but for us, we could not lock a
breaker/disconnect on except maybe in rare cases.



He could always put a safety lock, the type used by some utilities so
firemen can whack it with a fire ax and it breaks off. Of course, the
firemen have been known to knock the meter right out of the housing with
a fire ax when a house is on fire. ^_^

http://www.qrfs.com/BreakableLockwithKey

TDD

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:08:54 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

You might want to check with someone up on the code before you put a lock to
lock on the breaker/disconnect that is outside the house.

I am thinking it was put on so the fire department could disconnect the
house from the power lines if it caught on fire. Could be wrong on that.

That would make sense, but the disconnect breaker cover could easily
be knocked off by the FD as it is a stand-off type waterproof box. It
is not recessed in the meter panel. The breaker is recessed, though.

Thanks.

On 9/10/2013 1:01 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 12:16:23 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:17:35 -0400, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I was an electrician before retiring

Question:

Outside, just under my meter is a single 200 Amp breaker saying
"service disconnect".

Will turning off the breaker kill the power inside my electrical
panel? Meaning; the panel is not hot and "SAFER" to work when I add a
whole house breaker surge protector?

Thanks everyone for the replies and excellent advice and warnings.

My 200 Amp breaker - main disconnect at the meter; resembles this
photo, except the breaker is lower down one the meter box.

http://handymanhowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/DSC03966.jpg

My plan is to use a SPD breaker in breaker panel in the garage. Dufas
pointed me in the correct direction for the Homelite brand.

I'll also add a lock at the meter breaker since it could easily be
turned off by the miscreants and stink-eyes.

Thanks again.


I haven't seen a meter box like that around here but at one time the
whole breaker panel with the meter in the top was very common sometimes
containing only the heavy load breakers with a separate lighting panel
on the inside. It's what's in the older home I reside in now but I
haven't seen that type of setup used on newer homes except there may be
a 200 amp breaker in a separate box under the meter box. ^_^

TDD

On 9/10/13 1:07 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:20:44 -0600, bud--
wrote:

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

chuckle

I recall fuel trucks dragging chains for "earthling".

Farmers used to have a drag chain on their combines long ago to
dissipate static electricity. It doesn't take long to ruin an expensive
piece of equipment that is surrounded by combustible material.
Hot bearings are probably a more frequent cause of combine fires.

The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP



He could always put a safety lock, the type used by some utilities so
firemen can whack it with a fire ax and it breaks off. Of course, the
firemen have been known to knock the meter right out of the housing with
a fire ax when a house is on fire. ^_^

http://www.qrfs.com/BreakableLockwithKey

TDD

WE had a couple of our guys suffer from arc blast
when they pulled the meter at a convenience store
fire. This was 30 years ago.


--
Tekkie

On 9/10/2013 9:10 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP



He could always put a safety lock, the type used by some utilities so
firemen can whack it with a fire ax and it breaks off. Of course, the
firemen have been known to knock the meter right out of the housing with
a fire ax when a house is on fire. ^_^

http://www.qrfs.com/BreakableLockwithKey

TDD

WE had a couple of our guys suffer from arc blast
when they pulled the meter at a convenience store
fire. This was 30 years ago.



That's why the firefighters I know tell me they stand back and have
their protective gear on when knocking a meter out the socket. o_O

TDD

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:07:42 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:20:44 -0600, bud--
wrote:

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

chuckle

I recall fuel trucks dragging chains for "earthling".

Hmm, what did they use to troll for Martians?

On 9/10/2013 1:15 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:30:28 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/9/2013 4:22 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 09/09/2013 05:13 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
...
Most likely yes. 200A is a typical value for a modern house's
service,
and "just under the meter" makes sense. I'm assuming that the box in
which it is contained is locked however?


No the box is not locked. It could be done though. But the box is like
a typical outside waterproof box for outside outlets. The cover could
be knocked off to get to the breaker so I think a lock is kind of
useless.

They are often designed so that you can put a lock on them. The
reason is
to lock it off so that it can not be turned on (without defeating
something)
while you are working on the wiring.

And it cannot be manually turned OFF by a miscreant who's planning on
breaking in and wants to cut the power so your cordless phones etc.
don't work.

If you have cordless phones (and no cell, or live in an area with poor
cell service) it's good to make sure that you have at least one that is
corded and/or plugged into a UPS. Taking a look at where all your
utilities run into the house and making sure that a simple pair of
sidecutters can't leave you without communications is prudent IMHO.

No, I've never had a situation like that, but it is good to think ahead.

nate


Cell system communication modems are a lot less expensive than they used
to be as a backup if the land line is cut. The are also alarm companies
that have proprietary radio links working on the two way radio bands.
I'm not sure of the cost of the cell system modems but I've been
installing wireless links in retail stores that allow the credit card
systems to operate if the T1 or internet connection goes down. It used
to be dial-up modems for the CC machines if the T1 failed
but technology marches on. I use VoIP and cellular for my phones and am
looking for a good VoIP provider that will allow the business to operate
the same way it does now with ringmaster for the three phone numbers in
the office which includes a fax machine. Roommate needs remote call
forwarding for the business phone while leaving the house phone and fax
machine working as they do now. ^_^

When I looked into it, cell based alarm systems were about $20/mo more
than landline or Internet connected systems. The cell companies don't
give away even the smallest bandwidth (SMS, for example).


I have an old analog cell modem around somewhere, I should dig it out
and an old analog cellphone to see if I can still get a connection. I
remember reading something about some analog stuff still working but
that may no longer be true. I'll have to do a bit of research. O_o

TDD

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:07:42 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:20:44 -0600, bud-- wrote:
Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

I recall fuel trucks dragging chains for "earthling".

Planes were crashing due to lightning strikes. And were destroyed while on ground. Then engineers implemented simple techniques so that direct lightning strikes cause no damage.

An example of why airplane grounds are essential:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/ltg/plane_japan.php

A ground mistake inside a Boeing 707 meant lightning destroying an in-flight passenger liner over Elkton MD. That defective ground was corrected so that direct strikes cause no damage. Same concepts are why a ‘whole house’ protector does best protection for all household appliances.

Obviously the topic was not about airplanes. Aerospace grounding is more complex. But uses similar techniques. Relevant is a different surge that comes from many sources including lightning. When did AC grid switching bring down an airliner? Only a sales promoter would confuse appliance protection with airborne airplanes.

Grounded airplanes are directly struck by lightning without damage - because by using similar single point earth ground concepts. Even airplanes have no damage when lighting is only "intercepted or diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed, not result in damage." Same technique means direct lightning strikes without damage to any appliance.

Page 33 figure 8 shows damage because a surge current was permitted (all but invited) inside. Destructive surges hunt for earth destructively via appliance - without or without a plug-in protector. Even plug-in protectors needs protection only provided by earthing BEFORE a surge can enter the building. 8000 volts does not exist destructively inside a house when a ‘whole house’ protector is properly earthed. 8000 volts destroys any nearby appliance because money was misdirected on protectors that do not even claim that protection.

Even munitions dumps do not waste money on plug-in protectors. Instead they upgrade and carefully inspect what defines protection - single point earth ground. Reality does not change because many only learned from advertising and sales promoters. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Where is that plug-in protector specification that defines protection? He cannot provide that simple spec number … because even the manufacturer does not claim that protection. A protector is as effective as its earth ground. So that everything is protected including power strip protectors.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:10:54 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:


WE had a couple of our guys suffer from arc blast
when they pulled the meter at a convenience store
fire. This was 30 years ago.

I had not heard of the problem before, until a few years ago, when my
meter was changed by the utility company.

The guy had full face shield and other personal safety equipment. He
was telling me of instances where he saw it happen.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:00:10 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

That's why the firefighters I know tell me they stand back and have
their protective gear on when knocking a meter out the socket. o_O

Arc Flash:

"Journeyman electrician reaches under an electric panel to attach a
phase meter. Two apprentice electricians stand in the open enclosure.
The journeyman electrician assumed the enclosure was de-energized, but
did not follow lock out tag out procedure. Notice the helmet stays
attached during the explosion. The hair net melted into his skin.
Electrical explosion in Cudahy WI in 2003."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqZ47FBw1YU

.... a hair net?

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:31:22 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:07:42 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:20:44 -0600, bud-- wrote:

Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or

do they drag an earthing chain)?



I recall fuel trucks dragging chains for "earthling".



Planes were crashing due to lightning strikes. And were destroyed while on ground. Then engineers implemented simple techniques so that direct lightning strikes cause no damage.



That wasn't the question. The question was if surge protection is
impossible without a short, direct connection to ground, which is
what you claim, how can airplanes be surge protected?




An example of why airplane grounds are essential:

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/ltg/plane_japan.php



Thanks for now repeating back to us what we've been telling you
for years. Now, the real question is, where is that direct,
short connection to earth, that you
say is required for any surge protection to be possible?




A ground mistake inside a Boeing 707 meant lightning destroying an in-flight passenger liner over Elkton MD. That defective ground was corrected so that direct strikes cause no damage. Same concepts are why a ‘whole house’ protector does best protection for all household appliances.



Obviously the topic was not about airplanes. Aerospace grounding is more complex. But uses similar techniques.

How is that possible, it it's true, as you claim, that no surge protection
is possible without a short, direct connection to earth ground?




Relevant is a different surge that comes from many sources including lightning. When did AC grid switching bring down an airliner? Only a sales promoter would confuse appliance protection with airborne airplanes.



No one claimed AC grid switching brought down an airliner. We're
just asking the simple question, if there can be no protection
against lightning induced surges without a direct, short connection
to earth, how is it that those airplanes are very effectively
protected against surges?





Grounded airplanes are directly struck by lightning without damage - because by using similar single point earth ground concepts. Even airplanes have no damage when lighting is only "intercepted or diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed, not result in damage." Same technique means direct lightning strikes without damage to any appliance.



Page 33 figure 8 shows damage because a surge current was permitted (all but invited) inside. Destructive surges hunt for earth destructively via appliance - without or without a plug-in protector. Even plug-in protectors needs protection only provided by earthing BEFORE a surge can enter the building. 8000 volts does not exist destructively inside a house when a ‘whole house’ protector is properly earthed. 8000 volts destroys any nearby appliance because money was misdirected on protectors that do not even claim that protection.



The lie repeated. What page 33, fig 8 of the IEEE guide actually
shows is a plug-in surge protector protecting a TV from damage by
a surge. And it further states that to avoid the destructive surge
to TV2, a second surge protector for it is required.

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2."


THAT is what IEEE says and what it shows. The IEEE guide is showing an example of plug-in surge protectors being used. You on the other hand continue
to claim they are useless and actually cause damage. If that were the case,
IEEE would just say it too and say don't bother with plug-in protectors,
they are useless, instead of showing one protecting TV1 and saying that
an additional one would protect TV2. Anyone can look at the simple drawing, read a paragraph or two, and decide who is lying.

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

Page 32 of the document.



Even munitions dumps do not waste money on plug-in protectors. Instead they upgrade and carefully inspect what defines protection - single point earth ground. Reality does not change because many only learned from advertising and sales promoters. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.



So, again, how is it that those airplanes are surge protected?

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:10:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

So, again, how is it that those airplanes are surge protected?

I'd like to see ALL the answers that bub has asked him, above.

Stepping in horse **** won't make one a cowboy.

" wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 9:31:22 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:07:42 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:20:44 -0600, bud-- wrote:

Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or

do they drag an earthing chain)?



I recall fuel trucks dragging chains for "earthling".



Planes were crashing due to lightning strikes. And were destroyed
while on ground. Then engineers implementged simple techniques so that
direct lightning strikes cause no damage.



That wasn't the question. The question was if surge protection is
impossible without a short, direct connection to ground, which is
what you claim, how can airplanes be surge protected?




A short ground at the box may prevent end point differential voltage spike.
If the strike is large enough, there will possibly be still enough remote
voltage to damage. End point protection provides elimination of
differential spike, but makes it common mode. If a device still sees a very
high common mode voltage, it could still have damage if there is enough
capacitance to another ground point. In the case of a plane, huge currents
in the aluminum could still cause internal problems caused by induced
currents.

Greg

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:59:08 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:10:21 -0700 (PDT), "
So, again, how is it that those airplanes are surge protected?

I'd like to see ALL the answers that bub has asked him, above.

Obviously terrestrial protection is irrelevant to airborne protection. Aerospace protection is significantly more complex. It must protect when an airplane is grounded like a house. It must protect when the incoming and outgoing path to earth can be any two locations (as in that picture). And it must protect during direct "cloud to cloud" lightning strikes. Totally irrelevant to the topic. Educated posters would understand that.

Obviously airplane protection was irrelevant to this topic. Cheapshot artists must create confusion. So that damning questions (that demand numbers) can be ignored.

If honest, then they said where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. Then severe limitations of plug-in protectors become obvious. Then obvious is why plug-in protectors must be implemented with a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Every IEEE and other professional sources always cite one always required system component: single point earth ground.

Where is a power strip numeric spec that claims protection from each type of surge? Even a promoter of these products cannot provide spec numbers for one simple reason. A power strip protector does not claim to protect from that typically destructive type of surge. It only claims to protect from tinier transients; often made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances.

Why so many cheapshot accusations without any honest technical numbers? Same reason why they want to talk about airplanes when the discussion obviously is about terrestrial protection.

If not posting denigration, then ask technical questions one post at a time. A respectful question from someone with a basic grasp of science gets answered. Many of his questions are intentionally childish and vilifying. Ignoring his silly accusations is his best answer. Because no adult need be that ignorant.

Should you want to learn, then ask his questions without mockery and ridicule.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:18:02 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:59:08 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:10:21 -0700 (PDT), "

So, again, how is it that those airplanes are surge protected?



I'd like to see ALL the answers that bub has asked him, above.



Obviously terrestrial protection is irrelevant to airborne protection. Aerospace protection is significantly more complex. It must protect when an airplane is grounded like a house. It must protect when the incoming and outgoing path to earth can be any two locations (as in that picture). And it must protect during direct "cloud to cloud" lightning strikes. Totally irrelevant to the topic. Educated posters would understand that.



It's not irrelevant because some of the same principles that are used
in plug-in surge protectors deployed in a house apply:

tiered protection
clamping





Obviously airplane protection was irrelevant to this topic. Cheapshot artists must create confusion. So that damning questions (that demand numbers) can be ignored.



Confusion? You take a diagram from the IEEE guide that shows
how a plug-in surge protector is used to protect a TV and try to
claim it shows they cause damage, because the second TV, with no
surge protector, gets damaged. Despite the fact that the IEEE
guide says:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2."







If honest, then they said where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate.

As Bud and everyone else has tried to explain to you, an AC surge
inside a house is not hundreds of thousands of joules.



Then severe limitations of plug-in protectors become obvious. Then obvious is why plug-in protectors must be implemented with a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Every IEEE and other professional sources always cite one always required system component: single point earth ground.



Where is a power strip numeric spec that claims protection from each type of surge? Even a promoter of these products cannot provide spec numbers for one simple reason. A power strip protector does not claim to protect from that typically destructive type of surge. It only claims to protect from tinier transients; often made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances.



Here's an example that took about 30 secs to find:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...FS1p7Aod7mgAGA


Model
BrandBELKINSeriesHome/OfficeModelBE106000-04

Specification
Outlets6
Cord Length4 ft.
Output Amperage Capacity15
Output Watt Capacity1875W
AC Suppression Joule Rating720
JouleEMI/RFI Noise Filter150K Hz - 100M Hz, up to 43dB
Clamping Voltage330
VoltsProtection ModesH-N, N-G and H-G
Features720 Joule energy rating provides maximum protection of all your sensitive electronic devices
6 Surge-protected outlets supply complete, 3-line AC protection
4-foot power cord delivers optimal, safe AC power through a 14-gauge heavy-duty cord
Filters EMI/RFI noise up to 43 dB reduction
Maximum Spike Amperage of 48,000 Amps


Not hard to find.

BTW, still waiting for the answer to the question of how surge
protection is possible inside an appliance, which you acknowledge
exists is possible, since said appliance has no short, direct
connection to earth ground......




Why so many cheapshot accusations without any honest technical numbers? Same reason why they want to talk about airplanes when the discussion obviously is about terrestrial protection.


We've supplied references from IEEE and NIST. That's about
as honest as it gets. Your references are pretty much your
flapping gums.




If not posting denigration, then ask technical questions one post at a time. A respectful question from someone with a basic grasp of science gets answered. Many of his questions are intentionally childish and vilifying.. Ignoring his silly accusations is his best answer. Because no adult need be that ignorant.



Should you want to learn, then ask his questions without mockery and ridicule.

Oh please. Those simple questions have been asked of you for
years:

Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example, page 33?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?



There never is an answer, because the answers would show
you're wrong. It's impossible to explain how the IEEE talks about
using plug-ins and shows diagrams where they are used, and at
the same time claim that it's consistent with your claims that
they are worthless, ineffective, cause damage, etc. So,
after getting beat up here time after time, you feel ridiculed.
I've yet to see anyone agree with you. Sorry, but that's how it works.

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:00:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
It's not irrelevant because some of the same principles that are used
in plug-in surge protectors deployed in a house apply:

A 200 watt transmitter is connected to a long wire antenna. Touch one part of that antenna to feel no voltage. Touch another part to be shocked by maybe over 100 volts. How are two completely different voltages on the same wire? Because electrical concepts, unknown to you, also apply to surge protection.

You posted a Belkin spec that only says one thing about surge protection. Its 720 (near zero) joules will magically absorb surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules. A 720 joules surge is irrelevant due to protection already inside appliances. Surges are that small (less than 720 joules) or smaller when proper earthing and a 'whole house' protector is implemented.

You could not even identify which Belkin spec defines protection. So you posted the entire spec hoping something defines protection from all types of surges. GZ discussed different types. Insufficient knowledge explains why you have no idea what he posted. And why most of your posted specs say nothing about each type of surge. Fewer and informed posters even have contradicted you. They said so in a way you would not understand. So you would not also attack them with phony accusations.

Defined were numerous reasons why all appliances have internal protection. It was too complex for you. Let's make it real simple. One reason why electronics have superior protection: galvanic isolation. You have a bad habit of reading only what you want to hear. I did not say galvanic isolation is the entire protection. It is but one example of superior protection required and found in appliances. And then something you never post. Numbers. 120 volt electronics even 40 years ago could withstand 600 volt spikes without damage.

Hundreds of thousands of joules can enter a building (go hunting destructively for earth via appliances) IF energy is not earthed BEFORE entering. Every IEEE and other professional citations requires a low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to earth to have protection. For example the Red Book Standard 141:
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.

From IEEE's Emerald Book:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...
Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement
may result in hazardous potential being developed between
the telephone (data) equipment and other grounded items

From Southwest Bell on surge protection:
Surge protection takes on many forms, but always involves the
following components: Grounding bonding and surge protectors.
...
Grounding is required to provide the surge protector with a
path to dump the excess energy to earth. A proper ground system
is a mandatory requirement of surge protection. Without a proper
ground, a surge protector has no way to disburse the excess
energy and will fail to protect downstream equipment.
Bonding is required to electrically connect together the various
grounds of the services entering the premises. Without bonding,
a surge may still enter a premise after firing over a surge
protector, which will attempt to pass the excess energy to its
ground with any additional energy that the services surge
protector ground cannot instantly handle, traveling into and
through protected equipment, damaging that equipment in the
process. ...
Now, if all the various service entrance grounds are bonded
together there are no additional paths to ground through the
premise. Even if all of the grounds cannot instantly absorb the
energy, the lack of additional paths to ground through the
premise prevents the excess energy from seeking out any
additional grounds through that premise and the electronic
equipment within. As such, the excess energy remains in the
ground system until dissipated, sparing the protected equipment
from damage. ...
By far, the whole house hardwired surge protectors provide the
best protection. When a whole house primary surge protector is
installed at the service entrance, it will provide a solid
first line of defense against surges which enter from the power
company's service entrance feed. These types of protectors can
absorb/pass considerably more energy than any other type of
protector, and if one does catastrophically fail, it will not
typically be in a living space. ...
Plug in strip protectors are, at best, a compromise. At worst,
they may cause more damage than they prevent. While they may do
an acceptable job of handling hot to neutral surges, they do a
poor job of handling any surge that must be passed to ground.

You had ignorance of two separate voltages on the same wire. You selectively misquote to protect myths taught by advertising. In some cases, you have no idea what that expert (ie Martzloff) was really saying. In part because you routinely ignore all numbers. You even confused an in-flight airliner with terrestrial protection.

You quote a Belkin spec that makes no claims of protection from each type of surge. Due to ignorance, you quote then entire spec hoping something defines protection. Why post specs that do not claim to protect from typically destructive surges? Relevant concepts even in GZ's post and confirmed by Southwest Bell completely escape you - due to an education from advertising.

To remain deceived, you even ignored what Martzloff says about plug-in (point of connection) protectors:
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.

Your accusations are provided by a sales promoter who has spend almost ten years following me as my personal troll. He is paid to promote myths and half truths. What is your excuse for denying basic electrical concepts? You did not even know that zero volts and over 100 volts could exist on the same wire.

If the naive are in denial, then that proves protectors with no earth connection will magically make hundreds of thousands of joules disappear? Oh. bud says its not hundreds of thousands of joules. You know the sales promoter, who never did any of this, must be right? All IEEE Standards must be wrong - your reasoning.

So how does near zero joules in that Belkin magically make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically disappear. Simple. You deny those hundreds of thousands of joules even exist. And then create confusing by discussing in-flight aircraft. To mask what is, at best, an electrician's knowledge of electricity.

On Friday, September 13, 2013 9:20:36 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:00:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:

It's not irrelevant because some of the same principles that are used

in plug-in surge protectors deployed in a house apply:



A 200 watt transmitter is connected to a long wire antenna. Touch one part of that antenna to feel no voltage. Touch another part to be shocked by maybe over 100 volts. How are two completely different voltages on the same wire? Because electrical concepts, unknown to you, also apply to surge protection.



Yawn, just more re-direction. Except perhaps that if you're in the
practice of grabbing on to energized antennas, well, that might
explain you condition.




You posted a Belkin spec that only says one thing about surge protection. Its 720 (near zero) joules will magically absorb surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules.

It says no such thing. And again, as Bud stated with references,
surges at an appliance inside a house are *not* any where near hundreds
of thousands of joules.




A 720 joules surge is irrelevant due to protection already inside appliances. Surges are that small (less than 720 joules) or smaller when proper earthing and a 'whole house' protector is implemented.

And your cite for that would be?





You could not even identify which Belkin spec defines protection. So you posted the entire spec hoping something defines protection from all types of surges. GZ discussed different types. Insufficient knowledge explains why you have no idea what he posted. And why most of your posted specs say nothing about each type of surge. Fewer and informed posters even have contradicted you. They said so in a way you would not understand. So you would not also attack them with phony accusations.



Tou asked for a reference, I supplied one. That is something you
are incapable of doing. The specs listed there are no different
than the specs you'd find in the typical whole house surge protector,
which you accept.




Defined were numerous reasons why all appliances have internal protection.

We must have missed that. And also the part about how they could
even have surge protection, when you keep honking on about how no
protection is possible without a direct, short connection to earth
ground.


It was too complex for you. Let's make it real simple. One reason why electronics have superior protection: galvanic isolation.

Good grief! The MOV inside an oven, dishwasher, or TV is there
to protect against galvanic corrosion?



You have a bad habit of reading only what you want to hear.

Unlike you, who takes the IEEE guide showing the usage of
plug-in surge protectors and tries to lie that it says something
else? Good grief!

I did not say galvanic isolation is the entire protection.

Yawn... This post you just made is the first I've heard of
galvanic anything in this thread. You have me confused with sone
other heated debate in another forum? Or did you just forget
to take your medications?



It is but one example of superior protection required and found in appliances. And then something you never post. Numbers. 120 volt electronics even 40 years ago could withstand 600 volt spikes without damage.



Still waiting for an answer. How is that protection inside an
appliance possible when you claim that for any protection at all
a direct, short connection to earth ground is necessary?
That is just one of the many questions we've been asking for years,
with no answer....




Hundreds of thousands of joules can enter a building (go hunting destructively for earth via appliances)

BS. That amount of energy would cause arcing and flash over long
before it got to any appliances.


IF energy is not earthed BEFORE entering. Every IEEE and other professional citations requires a low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to earth to have protection. For example the Red Book Standard 141:

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.



From IEEE's Emerald Book:

It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and

bonding connections exist among the telephone and data

equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding

system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...

Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement

may result in hazardous potential being developed between

the telephone (data) equipment and other grounded items



From Southwest Bell on surge protection:

Surge protection takes on many forms, but always involves the

following components: Grounding bonding and surge protectors.

...

Grounding is required to provide the surge protector with a

path to dump the excess energy to earth. A proper ground system

is a mandatory requirement of surge protection. Without a proper

ground, a surge protector has no way to disburse the excess

energy and will fail to protect downstream equipment.

Bonding is required to electrically connect together the various

grounds of the services entering the premises. Without bonding,

a surge may still enter a premise after firing over a surge

protector, which will attempt to pass the excess energy to its

ground with any additional energy that the services surge

protector ground cannot instantly handle, traveling into and

through protected equipment, damaging that equipment in the

process. ...

Now, if all the various service entrance grounds are bonded

together there are no additional paths to ground through the

premise. Even if all of the grounds cannot instantly absorb the

energy, the lack of additional paths to ground through the

premise prevents the excess energy from seeking out any

additional grounds through that premise and the electronic

equipment within. As such, the excess energy remains in the

ground system until dissipated, sparing the protected equipment

from damage. ...

By far, the whole house hardwired surge protectors provide the

best protection. When a whole house primary surge protector is

installed at the service entrance, it will provide a solid

first line of defense against surges which enter from the power

company's service entrance feed. These types of protectors can

absorb/pass considerably more energy than any other type of

protector, and if one does catastrophically fail, it will not

typically be in a living space. ...

Plug in strip protectors are, at best, a compromise. At worst,

they may cause more damage than they prevent. While they may do

an acceptable job of handling hot to neutral surges, they do a

poor job of handling any surge that must be passed to ground.



Yawn... When you have a cite from those sources which say that
plug-in surge protectors are not an effective part of surge
protection strategy, post that.





You had ignorance of two separate voltages on the same wire. You selectively misquote to protect myths taught by advertising. In some cases, you have no idea what that expert (ie Martzloff) was really saying. In part because you routinely ignore all numbers. You even confused an in-flight airliner with terrestrial protection.



LOL. I didn't confuse anything. You claim surge protection is impossible
without a direct, shore connection to ground. So, how do you explain
that avionics on aircraft are protected against surges? Many airliners are
fly-by-wire today, there are computers and electronics between the joystick
and the ailerons and rudder. They don't have a short ground wire to earth.
What's up with that?





You quote a Belkin spec that makes no claims of protection from each type of surge. Due to ignorance, you quote then entire spec hoping something defines protection. Why post specs that do not claim to protect from typically destructive surges? Relevant concepts even in GZ's post and confirmed by Southwest Bell completely escape you - due to an education from advertising.



It has the same listing of specifications as any whole house surge
protector. I lists Max amps, H-N, N-G, etc, and it lists the max
energy that it can dissipate. If it's OK for the whole house protector,
then why isn't it good enough for the plug-in?



To remain deceived, you even ignored what Martzloff says about plug-in (point of connection) protectors:

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.



The word plug-in is not even mentioned in the above. Lame, really,
lame.





Your accusations are provided by a sales promoter who has spend almost ten years following me as my personal troll. He is paid to promote myths and half truths. What is your excuse for denying basic electrical concepts? You did not even know that zero volts and over 100 volts could exist on the same wire.


Wow, you're really losing it. My statements were my own. The fact
that I agree with Bud, and the IEEE, NIST, etc, apparently upsets you.
I've seen Bud post here for years, on a wide array of subjects. Somehow
you only magically appear, like a bat out of hell, when someone makes
a post about "surge protectors". Even the OP, has discredited you by
now. But... If you have one shred of evidence to back up the claim
that Bud is a sales promoter for surge protectors, I'm sure we'd all
be interested in seeing it...... But, I'm not holding my breath.






If the naive are in denial, then that proves protectors with no earth connection will magically make hundreds of thousands of joules disappear? Oh. bud says its not hundreds of thousands of joules. You know the sales promoter, who never did any of this, must be right? All IEEE Standards must be wrong - your reasoning.



Yawn.... The IEEE guide shows plug-in surge protectors being
used.





So how does near zero joules in that Belkin magically make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically disappear. Simple. You deny those hundreds of thousands of joules even exist. And then create confusing by discussing in-flight aircraft. To mask what is, at best, an electrician's knowledge of electricity.

Hundreds of thousands of joules never make it to the TV, computer, etc.
Capiche now?

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:03:11 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Even the OP, has discredited you by now.

OP here

Westom is taking a beating, "don't cha know".

My answer request was answered before he climbed into the ring

On Friday, September 13, 2013 4:14:12 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
My answer request was answered before he climbed into the ring

Not only will they not interfere as others noted. Both protectors are more effective if what actually does protection is upgraded - connection to and quality of single point earth ground.

westom wrote:
On Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:00:52 AM UTC-4, wrote:
It's not irrelevant because some of the same principles that are used
in plug-in surge protectors deployed in a house apply:

A 200 watt transmitter is connected to a long wire antenna. Touch one
part of that antenna to feel no voltage. Touch another part to be
shocked by maybe over 100 volts. How are two completely different
voltages on the same wire? Because electrical concepts, unknown to you,
also apply to surge protection.



You don't really get shocked. You get burned. In the army, I used climb up
the van to make sure the antenna was working by touching it. Those remote
drones would spring the Shute if the signal was poor. I later made a box
indicator so I didn't have to touch the antenna.

Greg

On 9/13/2013 7:20 AM, westom wrote:

And why most of your posted specs say nothing about each type of surge.

Just more nonsense. Some protectors even have protected equipment
warranties.

One of westom's favorite lies is that specs do not exist. I have posted
specs many times (contrary to westom's lie), So have other people. A
5-year old could google for specs. It really doesn't matter - westom
just continues to lie that they don't exist.

Fewer and informed posters even have contradicted you.

Another hallucination from westom.


You have a bad habit of reading only what you want to hear.

What a joke. Westom ignores everything that does not fit his very
limited opinions about protection.

Like for instance - obvious things westom ignores:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example, page 33?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

Never answered, because they can't be answered.

120 volt electronics even 40 years ago could withstand 600 volt spikes without damage.

Cite still missing.


From IEEE's Emerald Book:

The Emerald book (about protecting sensitive electronics) also
explicitly recognizes plug-in protectors as effective.

Another minor item that westom ignores.


You selectively misquote to protect myths taught by advertising.

What a joke. Westom is the king of selectively misquoting. Like
Martzloff below.

And one of first times I saw westom's drivel was at
alt.engineering.electrical, where westom misconstrued the views of
Arshad Mansoor who was a Martzlof 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."

In some cases, you have no idea what that expert (ie Martzloff) was really saying.

What a joke. Obviously it is westom that has no idea what Martzloff
says. Like below. And like the NIST surge guide, which Martzloff wrote.


To remain deceived, you even ignored what Martzloff says about plug-in
(point of connection) protectors:

As previously pointed out, the whole point of Marzloff's paper is that
multiport plug-in protectors are effective. Westom totally misconstrues
what Martzolff was saying.

Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?

Why can't you answer?

And more recently Martzloff wrote the NIST surge guide that says plug-in
protectors are effective.

(Martzloff, incidentally, comes up a lot because he did a lot of surge
research and has published a lot. He has put much of what he wrote on
the internet.)


He is paid to promote myths and half truths.

If poor westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie.

Maybe westom got hit on the head with a plug-in protector when he was 5
yeas old.


Oh. bud says its not hundreds of thousands of joules.

Actually it is Martzloff that says it. In a published paper. Martzloff
explained why, and I have repeated his explanation many times.

Do you disagree with Martzloff? How about an answer.

Where are the answers to simple questions?

Westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often
enough, people will believe it. (It is not working westom.)

You know the
sales promoter, who never did any of this, must be right?

The lie again.

And I provide reliable sources that agree with what I write.

All IEEE Standards must be wrong - your reasoning.

The standards are right. Westom is wrong.

Perhaps if he learned how to read, or even better how to think. He can
just read the quotes I provided.

There are 298,615,938 web sites, including 53,843,032 by lunatics, and
westom can't find another lunatic that agrees with him that plug-in
protectors do not work.

Westom can't even answer simple obvious questions.

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

On Friday, September 13, 2013 7:19:05 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Friday, September 13, 2013 4:14:12 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:

My answer request was answered before he climbed into the ring



Not only will they not interfere as others noted. Both protectors are more effective if what actually does protection is upgraded - connection to and quality of single point earth ground.


Inquiring minds want to know, how is it that here you have
no problem with a surge protector protecting an AC unit?
How can that be? You've argued over and over again, that
without a short, direct connection to earth ground, protection
is impossible. An AC unit doesn't have it's own, short, direct
connection to earth ground. It's grounded back through the
panel, just like a TV or computer would be. How is it possible
that the surge protector for the AC unit can work, but a
similar one for the TV can't because it doesn't have it's
own earth ground?