On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:14:19 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 00:00:27 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:43:37 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge

protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.

The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground.

Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.

In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port

surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.

The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram

is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:
"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"


I think westom wants a lightning rod on every appliance, cable / phone

lines, PC and garage door opener.


Yeah, he does say that you can't have any effective
surge protection without a direct earth ground. But,
he's not consistent. I don't remember who started the
thread a couple weeks ago about a surge protector on
an outside AC compressor. I think it might have been you?
In that thread, Tom agreed that the surge protector there
was OK. Yet that one has no earth ground.


many blank lines snipped because of Google

It was me. I had two threads: 1) would a whole house surge protector
interfere with the (SPD ) at my AC disconnect box. In the thread I was
shown a breaker to fit my breaker panel. 2) I just posted about a
(SPD) receptacle for a wall mount TV panel. I recall it was stated
that the cable box / etc. also needed surge protection.

see why I told him who I could trust?

That boy likes a good spanking here :-\

What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the
diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors
being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge
protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one
is damaged. From that he concludes that plug-in surge
protectors actually cause damage, when the IEEE clearly
state right there below fig 8:

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


Now that level of deception is something you don't see here
that often.

They guy is playin' games to avoid answering you and bud-.

I had a work computer network of 70 nodes - BANG - it took a hit from
a "brownout". Yes, I had the system protected. I supervised when it
was built.

Not one lightning rod present.

And how do you know it wouldn't have survived without the alleged
protection? You don't.

The protection I stated is not "alleged".

No need to take a chance on a $250,000,00 (1996) system that tax
payers paid for. I did not write the government contracts - I just
executed the build locally. ISTR the unit wrote a log file. Of
interest was the volts that surged.

These buildings were vintage WWII Air Force housing billets.

We had several brownout and transformer blow
ups where I used to work and we didn't have anything damaged and we
had lots of computers and electronic equipment, three closets full of
network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a
lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff
was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were
mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to
be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were
daisy chained....

I think daisy chaining is silly.

So do I but sometimes one doesn't have a lot of choice. My cube at
work has *one* duplex outlet. I have four laptops plugged in, along
with several monitors, four lights, and a variety of test equipment -
probably 25 plugs. They don't care enough to fix the situation so I
don't either. BTW, I'm only one of a hundred or so engineers who have
such a kludge under their desk (some more, some less).

On 10/2/2013 6:41 PM, wrote:
network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a
lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff
was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were
mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to
be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were
daisy chained....

I think daisy chaining is silly.

So do I but sometimes one doesn't have a lot of choice. My cube at
work has *one* duplex outlet. I have four laptops plugged in, along
with several monitors, four lights, and a variety of test equipment -
probably 25 plugs. They don't care enough to fix the situation so I
don't either. BTW, I'm only one of a hundred or so engineers who have
such a kludge under their desk (some more, some less).


I'd like to see someone make a 25 recepticle outlet strip. Would come in
handy, for example, the house where the power was on and sign out front
"yes we have power, yes you may charge your cell phone". Or for
Kirwatt's desk.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 04:59:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 3:00:27 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:43:37 -0700, Oren wrote:



On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:



Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge



protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.



The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground.



Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.



In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port



surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.



The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram



is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:

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





I think westom wants a lightning rod on every appliance, cable / phone



lines, PC and garage door opener.





Yeah, he does say that you can't have any effective

surge protection without a direct earth ground. But,

he's not consistent. I don't remember who started the

thread a couple weeks ago about a surge protector on

an outside AC compressor. I think it might have been you?

In that thread, Tom agreed that the surge protector there

was OK. Yet that one has no earth ground.





many blank lines snipped because of Google



It was me. I had two threads: 1) would a whole house surge protector

interfere with the (SPD ) at my AC disconnect box. In the thread I was

shown a breaker to fit my breaker panel. 2) I just posted about a

(SPD) receptacle for a wall mount TV panel. I recall it was stated

that the cable box / etc. also needed surge protection.



see why I told him who I could trust?



That boy likes a good spanking here :-\



What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the

diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors

being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge

protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one

is damaged. From that he concludes that plug-in surge

protectors actually cause damage, when the IEEE clearly

state right there below fig 8:



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

to protect TV2"





Now that level of deception is something you don't see here

that often.



They guy is playin' games to avoid answering you and bud-.



I had a work computer network of 70 nodes - BANG - it took a hit from

a "brownout". Yes, I had the system protected. I supervised when it

was built.



Not one lightning rod present.



And how do you know it wouldn't have survived without the alleged

protection? You don't. We had several brownout and transformer blow

ups where I used to work and we didn't have anything damaged and we

had lots of computers and electronic equipment, three closets full of

network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a

lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff

was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were

mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to

be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were

daisy chained....

So, at work, you had surge protectors and equipment wasn't damaged. At
home you chose to have no surge protectors and a bunch of electrical
gear was destroyed. And from that, you conclude that surge protectors
don't work?

No, some had some cheap surge protectors and some didn't. And nothing
got damaged. At home the tree next to the house was hit by lighting
and a couple things were damaged, not surprisingly since it melted a
circuit breaker. My point was and is that in my decades of not
worrying about using the usual store bought surge protectors I've seen
zero evidence that they do the slightest good or that they are needed.

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 3:06:05 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 04:59:12 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 3:00:27 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:43:37 -0700, Oren wrote:







On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:







On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:



On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "







wrote:







Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge







protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.







The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground.







Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.







In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port







surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.







The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram







is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:



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











I think westom wants a lightning rod on every appliance, cable / phone







lines, PC and garage door opener.











Yeah, he does say that you can't have any effective



surge protection without a direct earth ground. But,



he's not consistent. I don't remember who started the



thread a couple weeks ago about a surge protector on



an outside AC compressor. I think it might have been you?



In that thread, Tom agreed that the surge protector there



was OK. Yet that one has no earth ground.











many blank lines snipped because of Google







It was me. I had two threads: 1) would a whole house surge protector



interfere with the (SPD ) at my AC disconnect box. In the thread I was



shown a breaker to fit my breaker panel. 2) I just posted about a



(SPD) receptacle for a wall mount TV panel. I recall it was stated



that the cable box / etc. also needed surge protection.







see why I told him who I could trust?







That boy likes a good spanking here :-\







What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the



diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors



being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge



protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one



is damaged. From that he concludes that plug-in surge



protectors actually cause damage, when the IEEE clearly



state right there below fig 8:







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



to protect TV2"











Now that level of deception is something you don't see here



that often.







They guy is playin' games to avoid answering you and bud-.







I had a work computer network of 70 nodes - BANG - it took a hit from



a "brownout". Yes, I had the system protected. I supervised when it



was built.







Not one lightning rod present.







And how do you know it wouldn't have survived without the alleged



protection? You don't. We had several brownout and transformer blow



ups where I used to work and we didn't have anything damaged and we



had lots of computers and electronic equipment, three closets full of



network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a



lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff



was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were



mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to



be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were



daisy chained....



So, at work, you had surge protectors and equipment wasn't damaged. At

home you chose to have no surge protectors and a bunch of electrical

gear was destroyed. And from that, you conclude that surge protectors

don't work?



No, some had some cheap surge protectors and some didn't. And nothing

got damaged. At home the tree next to the house was hit by lighting

and a couple things were damaged, not surprisingly since it melted a

circuit breaker. My point was and is that in my decades of not

worrying about using the usual store bought surge protectors I've seen

zero evidence that they do the slightest good or that they are needed.

Take it up with the IEEE and all the various companies and
industries that deploy surge protection to protect their
equipment. The physics behind surge protection is sound
and well established. If you had a properly installed whole house surge protector at your panel, it's very likely that breaker would not have been fried and that some of the equipment that was damaged would have survived.. If you had multi-port plug-ins on the appliances like TVs that are connected to more than the AC, likely they would have survived too.

I'd like to see any credible reference that agrees with your
position that surge protection is useless and that 6 ft of
ordinary house wire will stop a surge. Apparently it didn't
stop yours.

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:25:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
François Martzloff and Don Worden provided much of the initial inspiration.

And so Francios Martzloff says in his IEEE paper what is also demonstrated by page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8. The figure shows damage when a surge is permitted inside the building. And when a plug-in protector is used without properly earthing a 'whole house' protector. 8000 volts connects to earth destructively via any nearby appliance. Damage even to one not connected to that protector - TV2.

Martzloff defines damage to appliances created by 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.

For over 100 years, protection has always been about connecting to earth BEFORE a surge can enter a building. So that hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside. That requirement has never changed despite so many denials here. Every facility that cannot have damage ALWAYS earths surge harmlessly in earth. Connecting that current to earth low impedance either by a wire or a 'whole house' protector.

In some facilities, an employee might even be fired for using plug-in protectors. Even a fire risk from plug-in protectors is too great and unacceptable.

Most important in every facility that cannot have surge damage is the most critical component of every protection system - earth ground. I believe the US military's manual "Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding for Electronic Equipments and Facilities" requires that ground for equipment protection to be inspected annually. Because it is that essential to surge protection.

IEEE Guide even says this repeatedly. Another paragraph from the Guide that requires a short (low impedance) connection to earth:
These large currents can only be dealt with by a direct
connection to the building or power panel ground. The
NEC/CEC are very explicit in requiring this connection,
and it has been required for many years. The NEC/CEC
specifically forbid using separate ground rods for individual
lines/equipment/protectors, unless the ground rods are
connected (bonded) to the building ground (NEC Art. 800.40). ...

Plug-in protectors does not provide this and will not discuss this. Effective protection is defined by and requires single point earth ground. That means the better and less expensive solution - one 'whole house' protector..

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 3:06:05 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 04:59:12 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 3:00:27 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:43:37 -0700, Oren wrote:







On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:







On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:



On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "







wrote:







Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge







protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.







The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground.







Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.







In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port







surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.







The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram







is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:



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











I think westom wants a lightning rod on every appliance, cable / phone







lines, PC and garage door opener.











Yeah, he does say that you can't have any effective



surge protection without a direct earth ground. But,



he's not consistent. I don't remember who started the



thread a couple weeks ago about a surge protector on



an outside AC compressor. I think it might have been you?



In that thread, Tom agreed that the surge protector there



was OK. Yet that one has no earth ground.











many blank lines snipped because of Google







It was me. I had two threads: 1) would a whole house surge protector



interfere with the (SPD ) at my AC disconnect box. In the thread I was



shown a breaker to fit my breaker panel. 2) I just posted about a



(SPD) receptacle for a wall mount TV panel. I recall it was stated



that the cable box / etc. also needed surge protection.







see why I told him who I could trust?







That boy likes a good spanking here :-\







What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the



diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors



being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge



protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one



is damaged. From that he concludes that plug-in surge



protectors actually cause damage, when the IEEE clearly



state right there below fig 8:







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



to protect TV2"











Now that level of deception is something you don't see here



that often.







They guy is playin' games to avoid answering you and bud-.







I had a work computer network of 70 nodes - BANG - it took a hit from



a "brownout". Yes, I had the system protected. I supervised when it



was built.







Not one lightning rod present.







And how do you know it wouldn't have survived without the alleged



protection? You don't. We had several brownout and transformer blow



ups where I used to work and we didn't have anything damaged and we



had lots of computers and electronic equipment, three closets full of



network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a



lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff



was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were



mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to



be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were



daisy chained....



So, at work, you had surge protectors and equipment wasn't damaged. At

home you chose to have no surge protectors and a bunch of electrical

gear was destroyed. And from that, you conclude that surge protectors

don't work?



No, some had some cheap surge protectors and some didn't. And nothing

got damaged. At home the tree next to the house was hit by lighting

and a couple things were damaged, not surprisingly since it melted a

circuit breaker. My point was and is that in my decades of not

worrying about using the usual store bought surge protectors I've seen

zero evidence that they do the slightest good or that they are needed.

Take it up with the IEEE and all the various companies and
industries that deploy surge protection to protect their
equipment. The physics behind surge protection is sound
and well established. If you had a properly installed whole house surge protector at your panel, it's very likely that breaker would not have been fried and that some of the equipment that was damaged would have survived.. If you had multi-port plug-ins on the appliances like TVs that are connected to more than the AC, likely they would have survived too.

I'd like to see any credible reference that agrees with your
position that surge protection is useless and that 6 ft of
ordinary house wire will stop a surge. Apparently it didn't
stop yours.

The only thing I have ever referred to was the typical clap trap
regarding the tremendous need we are all alleged to have for the surge
protected power strips that so many people buy to pull their computer
into. I specifically said earlier that none of my comments had
anything to do with whole house surge protectors intended to handle
lightning strikes. And my long ago friend who was an EE and worked
for a surge protection company was very clear in his statements that
for the kind of stuff the power strips are going to protect against
you can get the same protection by sticking in a six foot extension
cord, or understand that if there was six+ feet of house wiring
between your computer plug and the source of the NON-Lighting surge
you were protected anyway. My experiences going thru many "power
events" without worrying about having a power strip surge protector
suggest to me that he was correct.

On 10/3/2013 7:53 AM, westom wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:25:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:
François Martzloff and Don Worden provided much of the initial inspiration.

And so Francios Martzloff says in his IEEE paper what is also demonstrated by page 33
(Adobe page 42) figure 8. The figure shows damage when a surge is permitted inside the
building. And when a plug-in protector is used without properly earthing a 'whole house'
protector. 8000 volts connects to earth destructively via any nearby appliance. Damage
even to one not connected to that protector - TV2.

Voltage at TV2 without a protector at TV1 - 10,000V.
Voltage at TV2 with a protector at TV1 - 8,000V.
Never explained - how does the protector at TV1 damage TV2.

And
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in this
example? It wouldn't. The village idiot's favorite example is one where
his service panel protector does not protect.

And
- Why does the IEEE guide say in this example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?


Martzloff defines damage to appliances created by plug-in (point of connection) protectors:
Conclusion:

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


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

Why should anyone believe you if you can't even answer simple questions?

It is the same drivel from the village idiot. He just repeats the same
lies and totally misconstrues what Martzloff and the IEEE say.


Still missing - anyone who agrees with westom that plug-in protectors do
not work.

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

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:56:58 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Thursday, October 3, 2013 3:06:05 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 04:59:12 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:







On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 3:00:27 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:



On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:43:37 -0700, Oren wrote:















On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "







wrote:















On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:







On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "















wrote:















Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge















protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.















The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground.















Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.















In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port















surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.















The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram















is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:







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























I think westom wants a lightning rod on every appliance, cable / phone















lines, PC and garage door opener.























Yeah, he does say that you can't have any effective







surge protection without a direct earth ground. But,







he's not consistent. I don't remember who started the







thread a couple weeks ago about a surge protector on







an outside AC compressor. I think it might have been you?







In that thread, Tom agreed that the surge protector there







was OK. Yet that one has no earth ground.























many blank lines snipped because of Google















It was me. I had two threads: 1) would a whole house surge protector







interfere with the (SPD ) at my AC disconnect box. In the thread I was







shown a breaker to fit my breaker panel. 2) I just posted about a







(SPD) receptacle for a wall mount TV panel. I recall it was stated







that the cable box / etc. also needed surge protection.















see why I told him who I could trust?















That boy likes a good spanking here :-\















What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the







diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors







being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge







protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one







is damaged. From that he concludes that plug-in surge







protectors actually cause damage, when the IEEE clearly







state right there below fig 8:















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







to protect TV2"























Now that level of deception is something you don't see here







that often.















They guy is playin' games to avoid answering you and bud-.















I had a work computer network of 70 nodes - BANG - it took a hit from







a "brownout". Yes, I had the system protected. I supervised when it







was built.















Not one lightning rod present.















And how do you know it wouldn't have survived without the alleged







protection? You don't. We had several brownout and transformer blow







ups where I used to work and we didn't have anything damaged and we







had lots of computers and electronic equipment, three closets full of







network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a







lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff







was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were







mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to







be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were







daisy chained....







So, at work, you had surge protectors and equipment wasn't damaged. At



home you chose to have no surge protectors and a bunch of electrical



gear was destroyed. And from that, you conclude that surge protectors



don't work?







No, some had some cheap surge protectors and some didn't. And nothing



got damaged. At home the tree next to the house was hit by lighting



and a couple things were damaged, not surprisingly since it melted a



circuit breaker. My point was and is that in my decades of not



worrying about using the usual store bought surge protectors I've seen



zero evidence that they do the slightest good or that they are needed.



Take it up with the IEEE and all the various companies and

industries that deploy surge protection to protect their

equipment. The physics behind surge protection is sound

and well established. If you had a properly installed whole house surge protector at your panel, it's very likely that breaker would not have been fried and that some of the equipment that was damaged would have survived... If you had multi-port plug-ins on the appliances like TVs that are connected to more than the AC, likely they would have survived too.



I'd like to see any credible reference that agrees with your

position that surge protection is useless and that 6 ft of

ordinary house wire will stop a surge. Apparently it didn't

stop yours.



The only thing I have ever referred to was the typical clap trap

regarding the tremendous need we are all alleged to have for the surge

protected power strips that so many people buy to pull their computer

into. I specifically said earlier that none of my comments had

anything to do with whole house surge protectors intended to handle

lightning strikes.

There are none so blind as those that will not see. Whole house
surge protectors are not just limited to surges from lightning
strikes, though lightning surges are the most common source.
Yet from the start, you apparently didn't realize that.
When I referred you to the IEEE guide, you said that was
about lightning, not surges. Lightning
most often creates the surges that cause the destruction of
appliances. And if plug-in multi-port surge protectors are useless, why does the
IEEE guide show them being used? Where is your credible
referrence that says they are useless?







And my long ago friend who was an EE and worked

for a surge protection company was very clear in his statements that

for the kind of stuff the power strips are going to protect against

you can get the same protection by sticking in a six foot extension

cord, or understand that if there was six+ feet of house wiring

between your computer plug and the source of the NON-Lighting surge

you were protected anyway.

And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
friend is wrong. But more importantly, you have the IEEE
surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
protection. I'd like you to explain to us the physics
behind 6 feet of ordinary wiring stopping a typical destructive
surge that comes into a house via AC, cable, phone lines, etc.
What physics describe that miracle? Did it stop the surge
that destroyed all the stuff in your house?





My experiences going thru many "power

events" without worrying about having a power strip surge protector

suggest to me that he was correct.


You told us that at your house you had no surge protection
and a whole bunch of stuff was blown up from a surge caused
by lightning. THAT experience? Presumably you had a lot
more than 6 ft of wire, yet a lot of stuff got fried. Go
figure.

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 9:53:45 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:25:12 AM UTC-4, wrote:

François Martzloff and Don Worden provided much of the initial inspiration.



And so Francios Martzloff says in his IEEE paper what is also demonstrated by page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8. The figure shows damage when a surge is permitted inside the building. And when a plug-in protector is used without properly earthing a 'whole house' protector. 8000 volts connects to earth destructively via any nearby appliance. Damage even to one not connected to that protector - TV2.


The lie repeated. The IEEE diagram shows TV1 with a plug-in surge
protector protected from damage from that surge entering the
building. It shows TV2 with no surge protector being damaged.
It then states:

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

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

document page 33




Martzloff defines damage to appliances created by 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.



Show us where he said that the appliance that was protected
by a multi-port surge protector was damaged. I'd like to see
the full context of what you've excerpted above. Given how
you continue to misrepresent what the IEEE guide says,
I'd like to see the reference for the above quote please
so we can read the whole thing. I wouldn't be surprised that
the next paragraph talks about using plug-in surge protectors.






For over 100 years, protection has always been about connecting to earth BEFORE a surge can enter a building. So that hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside. That requirement has never changed despite so many denials here. Every facility that cannot have damage ALWAYS earths surge harmlessly in earth. Connecting that current to earth low impedance either by a wire or a 'whole house' protector.


No one here has said that the *first* line of defense is
stopping the surge before or shortly after it's entered
the building. A whole house surge protector serves that
purpose. What *you* are denying is that experts in the
field, the IEEE, industry, etc all agree that alone is
not sufficient. That a tiered strategy is necessary.
And the IEEE guide, among others, shows multi-port plug-in
surge protectors being used as part of that tiered stategy.

I even turned your own silly math against you. You claimed
a 20,000 amp surge could arrive at your "one stop" surge
protector at the panel. Let's assume for the purposes here
that it's true. If the grounding rod to earth connection
has just 1 ohm resistance, then when that 20K amps flows
through it, you're going to have 20K volts present between
the panel and ground. You think *that* isn't going to
still result in a substantial surge in the wiring in the
rest of the building? And that's with a ground rod resistance
of just 1 ohm. In the real world, code doesn't require
anything that low. If you're lucky, it's probably more like
5 ohms. And that's resistance. Factor in impedance, and
you're going to have one hell of a lot of voltage across
that surge protector. Meaning, there is still surge left
to be dealt with.








In some facilities, an employee might even be fired for using plug-in protectors. Even a fire risk from plug-in protectors is too great and unacceptable.


Sure, if you were running the facility. At some facility,
somewhere, at some time, anything is possible.




Most important in every facility that cannot have surge damage is the most critical component of every protection system - earth ground. I believe the US military's manual "Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding for Electronic Equipments and Facilities" requires that ground for equipment protection to be inspected annually. Because it is that essential to surge protection.



Those same facilities also use a tiered surge protection
strategy and do not just rely on surge protection where
the lines enter the building. I've told you about a zillion
times now that telcos for example have surge protection
devices, MOVs, right on the line cards in the CO switch
where the phone lines terminate. I've showed you app notes
from the makers of these components. But, none of it sinks
in. You can't admit it because those linecards have no direct
earth ground, so according to you, protection is impossible.




IEEE Guide even says this repeatedly. Another paragraph from the Guide that requires a short (low impedance) connection to earth:

These large currents can only be dealt with by a direct

connection to the building or power panel ground. The

NEC/CEC are very explicit in requiring this connection,

and it has been required for many years. The NEC/CEC

specifically forbid using separate ground rods for individual

lines/equipment/protectors, unless the ground rods are

connected (bonded) to the building ground (NEC Art. 800.40). ...



And they also say right there in that guide:


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

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

document page 33







Plug-in protectors does not provide this and will not discuss this.


And you end with a whopper of a lie. They do discuss
plug-in protectors, how they are used, they show
them being used in two diagrams. The reference is right
above that anyone who cares can view.

Also, you're single minded fetish assumes that everyone can
just go put in a whole house surge protector. How about if
you can't? You live in an apartment or rental property.
Then what?

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:56:58 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:





The only thing I have ever referred to was the typical clap trap

regarding the tremendous need we are all alleged to have for the surge

protected power strips that so many people buy to pull their computer

into. I specifically said earlier that none of my comments had

anything to do with whole house surge protectors intended to handle

lightning strikes.

There are none so blind as those that will not see. Whole house
surge protectors are not just limited to surges from lightning
strikes, though lightning surges are the most common source.
Yet from the start, you apparently didn't realize that.
When I referred you to the IEEE guide, you said that was
about lightning, not surges. Lightning
most often creates the surges that cause the destruction of
appliances. And if plug-in multi-port surge protectors are useless, why does the
IEEE guide show them being used? Where is your credible
referrence that says they are useless?




Never said it was. I said my comments were not directed toward whole
house surge protectors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?







And my long ago friend who was an EE and worked

for a surge protection company was very clear in his statements that

for the kind of stuff the power strips are going to protect against

you can get the same protection by sticking in a six foot extension

cord, or understand that if there was six+ feet of house wiring

between your computer plug and the source of the NON-Lighting surge

you were protected anyway.

And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
friend is wrong.

Are either of you working for a company that makes and sells surge
protectors?


But more importantly, you have the IEEE
surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
protection. I'd like you to explain to us the physics
behind 6 feet of ordinary wiring stopping a typical destructive
surge that comes into a house via AC, cable, phone lines, etc.
What physics describe that miracle? Did it stop the surge
that destroyed all the stuff in your house?



All I can tell you is my experience and it doesn't support the need
for power strip surge protectors. YMMV





My experiences going thru many "power

events" without worrying about having a power strip surge protector

suggest to me that he was correct.


You told us that at your house you had no surge protection
and a whole bunch of stuff was blown up from a surge caused
by lightning. THAT experience? Presumably you had a lot
more than 6 ft of wire, yet a lot of stuff got fried. Go
figure.

Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,
is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected
against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep
bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.

I would also point out that many standards settings organizations are
full of representatives of MANY industries and manufacturers and the
results of their work are not necessarily the best "reality" of the
customers needs but may also reflect the desire of those members to
protect the products made by their industry. So the fact that a
standard may suggest the need for something is not always meaningful.
They may also reflect a "we aren't sure if this is needed but lets be
safe and include it anyway and not **** off 20% of our members."
Having served on some of these committees I"ve see how it works.

On Friday, October 4, 2013 11:22:13 AM UTC-4, wrote:
And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
friend is wrong. But more importantly, you have the IEEE
surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical
engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
protection.

IEEE papers even say plug-in protectors alone (no properly earthed 'whole house' protector) can make damage to appliances easier. I even quoted Martzloff's paper that says that. Unlike you, I did this stuff even decades ago as an EE. Not just educated. Also have experience doing this. We learned even from mistakes. We traced surges earthed by power strip protectors destructively through hardware. Traced paths for that current. And then replaced each semiconductor in that path to make all computers functional.

Every damaged part was in a path from an ineffective plug-in protector to earth ground. Computers never failed again when replaced as obsolete. Why? We earth a 'whole house' protector to make future surges irrelevant. So that all types of surges no longer caused damage.

Calling bud an EE is bogus. He did not even know many concepts taught in first semester EE courses. He did not even know about wire impedance. Did not know difference between normal mode and longitudinal mode currents. He did not even know all phone lines already had 'whole house' protectors. He did not know concepts that must be known to understand what protectors really do. He claimed that a protector somehow makes energy just disappear.

A 'whole house' protector is protection from all types of destructive surges - from lightning down to surges that even do not harm appliances. Plug-in protectors can contribute only if the always required earthing and a 'whole house' protector exist. He was an electrician who became a sales promoter of surge protectors. So he posts insults rather than quote facts and numbers from Martzloff and other industry professional. He does not even know that most of protection is always provided by earthing and 'whole house' protectors.

Never once does he or you post a single plug-in protector specification numbers that defines protection from typically destructive surges. For good reason. No manufacturer makes that numeric claim.

In every case, what do professionals define as essential for protection? Earth ground.

IEEE Guide repeatedly says why effective protector are earthed. Page 33 figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through nearby appliances ... because that surge was not earthed BEFORE entering the building. That protector earthed a surges on the best path - 8000 volts destructively through TV2. It was doing what the manufacturer said it would do.

Paragraphs after paragraph from that Guide are quoted here defining earth ground as essential for protection. You ignore those paragraphs to continue promoting protectors that have no earth ground? You even thought bud was an EE? Please. He did not even know concepts taught to first semester engineers.

Scary is that you actually think bud has electrical engineering training. He does not even understand basic EE concepts that electricians are never taught and need not know. He even thought impedance and resistance were same.

On Friday, October 4, 2013 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,
is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected
against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep
bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.

He never reads to understand. He often reads to misrepresent and attack. Or to avoid discovering what he did not know.

Once a surge is earthed, then every foot of wire after that earthed protector INCREASES protection. Telcos want their equipment up to 50 meters separated from protectors. Because that separation increases protection AFTER a surge is connected to earth.

Even demonstrated in Category A, B, and C diagrams. Protectors closest to the service entrance must be most robust since a shorter wire means less impedance. However if a surge is not earthed at the service entrance, then protectors even most distant from an earthed 'whole house' protector no longer have additional protection afforded by longer wire.

Once a surge is earthed, then longer wire means better protection. If not properly earthed, then wire length no longer increases protection.

On Friday, October 4, 2013 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:56:58 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:











The only thing I have ever referred to was the typical clap trap



regarding the tremendous need we are all alleged to have for the surge



protected power strips that so many people buy to pull their computer



into. I specifically said earlier that none of my comments had



anything to do with whole house surge protectors intended to handle



lightning strikes.



There are none so blind as those that will not see. Whole house

surge protectors are not just limited to surges from lightning

strikes, though lightning surges are the most common source.

Yet from the start, you apparently didn't realize that.

When I referred you to the IEEE guide, you said that was

about lightning, not surges. Lightning

most often creates the surges that cause the destruction of

appliances. And if plug-in multi-port surge protectors are useless, why does the

IEEE guide show them being used? Where is your credible

referrence that says they are useless?






Never said it was. I said my comments were not directed toward whole

house surge protectors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?



Why is it so hard for you and Tom to understand that the IEEE
surge protection guide ia also not specifically directed to whole
house surge protectors. Probably because you haven't even read it.
They show the need for plug-in surge protectors as part of a tiered
protection strategy. Yet you are here claiming they are a scam.
THAT is the issue.

Your post said:

"My vote is for crap, not just for him but for the whole bloody
nonsense about surge protectors. It's a giant industry to protect you
from something that basically none of you have to worry about.

(non specificity as to any type of surge protector noted)

There was a guy in my computer club many years ago who worked for one
of the main companies that built surge protectors. He said it's all
nonsense as far as anyone really needing them. The transient spikes
are damped out in just a few feet of house wiring, I think he said 6
feet. So unless you have really crappy wiring in your house with bad
grounds and such and the outlet your computer is plugged into is the
same outlet as your 40 year old refrigerator uses that draws 20 amps
to start and dims the lights then repeats 6 times before finally
starting, you are chasing a mirage. About the only thing you might
need to worry about is lightening striking but if it does your little
surge strip isn't going to protect anything anyway. "


The IEEE guide, written by respected EE's that are surge experts
show plug-in surge protectors being used to protect against surges,
particularly those caused by lightning strikes.
The two diagrams that have been discusses a zillion times now
both show plug-in surge protectors being used. No where does that
IEEE guide say that 6 ft of wire does anything to stop surges.




And my long ago friend who was an EE and worked



for a surge protection company was very clear in his statements that



for the kind of stuff the power strips are going to protect against



you can get the same protection by sticking in a six foot extension



cord, or understand that if there was six+ feet of house wiring



between your computer plug and the source of the NON-Lighting surge



you were protected anyway.



And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're

friend is wrong.



Are either of you working for a company that makes and sells surge

protectors?


No, but are you related to WTom? That's one of his usual silly
accusations that he's made over the years against anyone that shows
he's wrong. In over a decade,
you're the first person I've seen who agrees with him and now you're
starting to use his tactics.





But more importantly, you have the IEEE

surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge

protection. I'd like you to explain to us the physics

behind 6 feet of ordinary wiring stopping a typical destructive

surge that comes into a house via AC, cable, phone lines, etc.

What physics describe that miracle? Did it stop the surge

that destroyed all the stuff in your house?


All I can tell you is my experience and it doesn't support the need

for power strip surge protectors. YMMV



You experience was that you had no surge protection and a lot of
electronic gear was blown up in your house. Go figure. You would
think that if you are incapable of explaining the simple physics, that you
would listen to electrical engineers expert in the field, read and
understand the IEEE guide written by those people.
But then there are none so blind as those that will not see.


My experiences going thru many "power



events" without worrying about having a power strip surge protector



suggest to me that he was correct.





You told us that at your house you had no surge protection

and a whole bunch of stuff was blown up from a surge caused

by lightning. THAT experience? Presumably you had a lot

more than 6 ft of wire, yet a lot of stuff got fried. Go

figure.



Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,

is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected

against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep

bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.



It's not a strawman.
What do you think is the most common source of surges that
surge protectors are there to protect against? What does that
IEEE guide that obviously you still won't read, say? Lightning
hits a utility pole down the block. A surge enters your house.
That is what surge protection is there for and 6 ft of wire
won't stop it, regardless of what your idiot friend says.
Even Tom isn't making that silly claim.




I would also point out that many standards settings organizations are

full of representatives of MANY industries and manufacturers and the

results of their work are not necessarily the best "reality" of the

customers needs but may also reflect the desire of those members to

protect the products made by their industry. So the fact that a

standard may suggest the need for something is not always meaningful.

They may also reflect a "we aren't sure if this is needed but lets be

safe and include it anyway and not **** off 20% of our members."

Having served on some of these committees I"ve see how it works.


Sure, reject the advice of the IEEE, grounded in science, all the published work covering better part of a century and go by what your dope of a friend told you. If 6 ft of wire is all that's required to prevent surges, it should
be easy to find all kinds of credible references saying exactly that on the internet. But you can't and won't find it, because it's pure BS and not supported by physics.

On Friday, October 4, 2013 7:15:58 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2013 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,

is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected

against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep

bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.



He never reads to understand. He often reads to misrepresent and attack. Or to avoid discovering what he did not know.



Once a surge is earthed, then every foot of wire after that earthed protector INCREASES protection. Telcos want their equipment up to 50 meters separated from protectors. Because that separation increases protection AFTER a surge is connected to earth.


According to you, once a surge is earthed by that one surge protector
at the panel, there is no more surge. End of story.
So, why now is there a need for additional wire between that surge
protector and eqpt? In a desperate attempt to recruit a friend here,
you're now shooting holes in your own sunken boat.




Even demonstrated in Category A, B, and C diagrams. Protectors closest to the service entrance must be most robust since a shorter wire means less impedance. However if a surge is not earthed at the service entrance, then protectors even most distant from an earthed 'whole house' protector no longer have additional protection afforded by longer wire.



What? You've been telling us for years now that the only protection
possible is with a direct earth ground. And that is ALL that is required.
There was no further protection possible. Now suddenly you're talking about
"protectors more distant"? Good grief, you're confused.

And if you want to support you're new buddy Ashton, help him find a
credible reference that says 6 ft of house wiring is effective as
surge protection and that it's a good form of surge protection. Is
that in the IEEE guide? Or even anywhere, including maybe a kook
website?




Once a surge is earthed, then longer wire means better protection. If not properly earthed, then wire length no longer increases protection.


BS. Wire has capacitance, resistance and inductance. Yes, that
will have an effect on an waveform (surge) that goes through it.
But it has an effect on the surge and it doesn't know the source
of the surge. It will tend to diminish any surge. It doesn't know
if the surge going through it is one that has already been partially
earthed somewhere else or not. And 6 ft of
wire is going to reduce a surge by such a tiny amount that it
isn't going to protect anything. All the various electronic gear
that is damaged everyday that is at the end of 50 or 100 ft of
AC wire, TV coax, etc proves that.

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 12:16:59 AM UTC-4, wrote:
According to you, once a surge is earthed by that one surge protector
at the panel, there is no more surge. End of story.

Again you read only enough to misrepresent, misunderstand, or just confuse others. I never said that. You fear to admit that advertising myths had easily manipulated you.

All appliances already contain significant protection. A surge (ie lightning, utility switching, squirrel) properly earthed before entering a building is then so tiny as to not overwhelm protection already inside appliances.. An earthed surge is so tiny as to be noise.

A surge properly earthed BEFORE entering a building means wire separation between protector and appliances further increases protection. Therefore telcos want their $multi-million computers located something less than 50 meters distant from 'whole house' protectors. Why do telcos suffer maybe 100 surges per storm without damage? Every incoming wire is earthed. Separation between computer and protector increases protection. Then a surge is so tiny as to never damage switching computers.

Page 33 figure 8 - damage because the surge was not earthed by a 'whole house' protector. Once earthed, then separation between appliance and protector increases protection.

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 8:57:28 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 12:16:59 AM UTC-4, wrote:

According to you, once a surge is earthed by that one surge protector

at the panel, there is no more surge. End of story.



Again you read only enough to misrepresent, misunderstand, or just confuse others. I never said that. You fear to admit that advertising myths had easily manipulated you.

Here you are saying it:

" Routine is protection from direct lightning strikes when a protector connects low impedance to earth. And the numbers that say so. Direct lightning strikes are typically about 20,000 amps. So a minimal 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. Because unlike power strips, one 'whole house' protector is protection for all types of surges including direct lightning strikes.

"Therefore every facility that cannot have damage always connects destructive surges to earth outside the building - either by a wire or via a 'whole house' protector. Only then is one surge every seven years or one surge every 30 years made irrelevant."

" It works like a wire. It connects hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly to earth outside the building. Then even power strip protectors (that only claim to absorb hundreds of joules) are protected. "

" Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Either harmlessly in earth (damped out in the first six feet). "

" Protection means a surge current is not inside the house"

"The only solution used in every facility that cannot have damage is earthing."




All appliances already contain significant protection.

According to you, that's impossible because you claim no surge
protection is impossible without an earth ground. Does that TV
have it's own built-in earth ground? Then how can it be that the
MOVs inside the TV work, but those inside a plug-in surge protector
that are of far higher capacity, can't because they have no earth
ground? That question has been asked for years, but never answered.

Which would you rather have handle most of a surge that shows up
at an appliance? The small MOV inside the $1500 TV, or the ones
an order of magnitude larger in the $15 plug-in surge protector
BEFORE the TV? MOVs have a limited life. I'd rather replace the
$15 surge strip than the $1500 TV.



A surge (ie lightning, utility switching, squirrel) properly earthed before entering a building is then so tiny as to not overwhelm protection already inside appliances. An earthed surge is so tiny as to be noise.

STill waiting for an answer to that one too. You claimed here in this
thread that a lightning surge showing up at the whole house surge protector
is 20K amps. You know Ohm's Law? What do you think the typical resistance
from that surge protector to earth is, ie through it's connection via a
ground round? Let's assume it's 1 ohm, which is ridiculously low, not
easily achievable, not required by code. V=IR. You now have 20K volts
at the panel. How is that not going to be "so tiny" that it's just noise?
And that assumes 1 ohm of resistance. The resistance is going to be higher,
the surge is fast rising, so the impedance is going to be much higher.
How does 20K amps through impedance generate just "tiny noise"?
Another very basic question added to the list







A surge properly earthed BEFORE entering a building means wire separation between protector and appliances further increases protection.

As explained but ignored previously, any surge with or without an
earth surged protector is going to be diminished the longer the
wire run because the wire has capacitance, inductance and resistance.
The problem is that the "reduction" is what's "very tiny" and Ashton's
6 ft of wire stopping a surge is pure BS.



Therefore telcos want their $multi-million computers located something less than 50 meters distant from 'whole house' protectors.

Now it's less than 50M? Good grief. I thought farther was better.
Why don't they make it 500M?
What have they done forever with a SLIC or similar piece of eqpt?
A SLIC is similar to a mini-switch, it terminates circuits from a
few hundred homes, puts them on a T1 or similar, ie concentrating
them before they get to a CO? That kind of gear sits in a refrigerator
size cabinet, at the side of the road. There is no 50M, yet it's
protected. Clue: They use a tiered protection strategy, exactly
as recommended by all those knowledgable in the industry. Same
tiered concept as shown in the IEEE guide, which you ignore.



Why do telcos suffer maybe 100 surges per storm without damage? Every incoming wire is earthed. Separation between computer and protector increases protection. Then a surge is so tiny as to never damage switching computers.



See the above. They use a tiered strategy, just like the IEEE guide
shows. That strategy includes surge protection on the line cards in
the switch itself. How is that possible, if no protection is possible
without direct earth ground? Always asked, never answered.

Here's one to add to your list. Why do major manufacturers of
electrical gear, the big names you cite who make whole house type
surge protectors also sell other surge protecting devices that they
recommend be used as part of a tiered strategy. You know,
like the one Oren has on his AC unit, that you finally said was OK.
How can they work, with no direct earth ground of their own? Why
do some of those same manufacturers, eg GE, also sell plug-ins?



Page 33 figure 8 - damage because the surge was not earthed by a 'whole house' protector. Once earthed, then separation between appliance and protector increases protection.


Page 33 fig 8 shows a lot of wire running through the house to
TV2, maybe 50 or 100 ft, not just 6 ft. It still gets damaged by
a surge. TV1, with a plug-in surge protector is not damaged. Then
the IEEE guide states:

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

Your references? Oh, you have no references.

On Friday, October 4, 2013 7:15:58 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2013 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,

is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected

against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep

bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.



He never reads to understand. He often reads to misrepresent and attack. Or to avoid discovering what he did not know.



Once a surge is earthed, then every foot of wire after that earthed protector INCREASES protection. Telcos want their equipment up to 50 meters separated from protectors. Because that separation increases protection AFTER a surge is connected to earth.



Even demonstrated in Category A, B, and C diagrams. Protectors closest to the service entrance must be most robust since a shorter wire means less impedance. However if a surge is not earthed at the service entrance, then protectors even most distant from an earthed 'whole house' protector no longer have additional protection afforded by longer wire.



Once a surge is earthed, then longer wire means better protection. If not properly earthed, then wire length no longer increases protection.

Explain the new physics where a given length of wire only attenuates
a surge if and only if a surge is earthed. Another foot of wire is
always going to reduce any surge by a very tiny, insignificant amount.
It's just that 6ft of wire is going to reduce a surge by such a small
amount that for all practical purposes, it's immaterial. It's *not*
surge protection. Do you see the IEEE saying it is?

On Friday, October 4, 2013 7:05:50 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2013 11:22:13 AM UTC-4, wrote:

And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're

friend is wrong. But more importantly, you have the IEEE

surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical

engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge

protection.



IEEE papers even say plug-in protectors alone (no properly earthed 'whole house' protector) can make damage to appliances easier. I even quoted Martzloff's paper that says that.

See, this is how it works. You've already taken the IEEE guide to
surge protection and completely misrepresented what it actually says.
You took two figures that show plug-in surge protectors being used
successfully for surge protection and tried to turn it 180 deg opposite
of what it really says. So, I've asked for the link, the reference so
that we can all see what Martzloff actually says, in context. Does he
say plug-in surge protectors cannot and should not be used as part
of a tiered surge protection strategy? That they are useless because
they have no earth ground? I've asked for the link, but so far all
we have are crickets.




Unlike you, I did this stuff even decades ago as an EE. Not just educated. Also have experience doing this. We learned even from mistakes.

I'm sure there were plenty of those.....

We traced surges earthed by power strip protectors destructively through hardware.

LOL. I'm sure that was a fair, impartial and unbiased evaluation.
When you start with all the faulty premises you've outlined here
and a religious war against surge protectors, I could tell you where
you'd end up before you even started.




Traced paths for that current. And then replaced each semiconductor in that path to make all computers functional.



Every damaged part was in a path from an ineffective plug-in protector to earth ground.

Of course it was, because it's that way by definition, according to you.



Computers never failed again when replaced as obsolete. Why? We earth a 'whole house' protector to make future surges irrelevant. So that all types of surges no longer caused damage.



Calling bud an EE is bogus. He did not even know many concepts taught in first semester EE courses. He did not even know about wire impedance. Did not know difference between normal mode and longitudinal mode currents. He did not even know all phone lines already had 'whole house' protectors. He did not know concepts that must be known to understand what protectors really do. He claimed that a protector somehow makes energy just disappear.


I've seen Bud post here for many years now on a wide array of
home repair topics, mostly EE related. The above is yet another lie.
I've never seen Bud say any of the nonsense you attribute to him.
His advice, knowledge has always been sound. And when needed, he
backs it up with links. Just like he's done here. Where are your
links that say plug-in surge protectors can't provide any protection?

You on the other hand, I've asked a simple question about Ohm's
Law generating a massive voltage difference right at your whole
house surge protector that takes the 20K amp hit, your own number.
Yet you refuse to answer the simple question of how that 20K+ volts
doesn't still present a serious surge to the wiring in the building.






A 'whole house' protector is protection from all types of destructive surges - from lightning down to surges that even do not harm appliances. Plug-in protectors can contribute only if the always required earthing and a 'whole house' protector exist.

Not true. The IEEE guide shows it on page 33.


He was an electrician who became a sales promoter of surge protectors.


Now you're really off into cuckoo land.



So he posts insults rather than quote facts and numbers from Martzloff and other industry professional. He does not even know that most of protection is always provided by earthing and 'whole house' protectors.



Never once does he or you post a single plug-in protector specification numbers that defines protection from typically destructive surges. For good reason. No manufacturer makes that numeric claim.



Sigh, there you go lying again. You've asked that over and over. The
last time was maybe a week ago. I gave you the specs and a link.
Here is another example from APC:


http://www.apc.com/products/resource...?base_sku=P8GT

Output
Number of Outlets
8

Receptacle Style
NEMA 5-15R

Input
Nominal Input Voltage
120V

Input Frequency
50/60 Hz

Input Connections
NEMA 5-15P NEMA 5-15P

Cord Length
1.83 meters

Maximum Input Current
15A

Surge Protection and Filtering
Surge energy rating
2160 Joules

EMI/RFI Noise rejection (100 kHz to 10 MHz)
58 dB

Peak Current Common Mode
144 kAmps


NM Surge Response Time (ns)
1 ns

Data Line Protection
RJ-11 Modem/Fax protection (two wire single line)

Let Through Voltage Rating
400




In every case, what do professionals define as essential for protection? Earth ground.



IEEE Guide repeatedly says why effective protector are earthed. Page 33 figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through nearby appliances ... because that surge was not earthed BEFORE entering the building. That protector earthed a surges on the best path - 8000 volts destructively through TV2. It was doing what the manufacturer said it would do.



That diagram shows TV1 with a plug-in protected from a surge.
It shows TV2, with no plug-in damaged by the same surge.
IEEE then states:

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

Only a village idiot would conclude that the the IEEE is saying
that the surge protector on TV1 "caused" the damage on TV2. Or that
the IEEE position is anything other than endorsing the use of plug-in
surge protectors as part of surge protection.



Paragraphs after paragraph from that Guide are quoted here defining earth ground as essential for protection. You ignore those paragraphs to continue promoting protectors that have no earth ground? You even thought bud was an EE? Please. He did not even know concepts taught to first semester engineers.



Again, no one here has said that a properly earthed whole house surge
protector is not effective, that it's not the best FIRST LINE of defense.
What you ignore that is right there in the IEEE guide is that plug-in
surge protectors can be used as part of a tiered strategy. They are
essential to protect appliances, eg TV, PC, that are connected to more
wiring than just AC.




Scary is that you actually think bud has electrical engineering training. He does not even understand basic EE concepts that electricians are never taught and need not know. He even thought impedance and resistance were same.

I'm an electrical engineer myself and you've accused me of some of
the same things you're accusing Bud of. You don't even believe the
half dozen authors of the IEEE surge protection guide. In fact, you
lie and distort what they actually say. Is that what they taught you
in science and engineering?

On 10/4/2013 5:05 PM, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 4, 2013 11:22:13 AM UTC-4, wrote:
And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
friend is wrong. But more importantly, you have the IEEE
surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical
engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
protection.

IEEE papers even say plug-in protectors alone (no properly earthed 'whole
house' protector) can make damage to appliances easier. I even quoted
Martzloff's paper that says that.

With minimal intelligence westom would understand what the sources were
saying - use a multiport protector where all wires go through the protector.

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

Still not answered.


Calling bud an EE is bogus. He did not even know many concepts taught
in first semester EE courses. He did not even know about wire impedance.

Westom can't read anything that violates his simple ideas of protection.
If he could he would have read the explanation of why the energy at a
plug-in protector is quite small. I have repeated the explanation (which
comes form research by Martzloff) many times. One of the reasons is the
impedance of the branch circuit wiring.

He did not know concepts that must be known to understand what protectors really do.

Westom can't figure out what plug-in protectors do - even when it is
clearly explained in the IEEE surge guide starting page 30.

He claimed that a protector somehow makes energy just disappear.

I explain (from Martzloff's research) where the energy goes.

Since it violates westoms very simple ideas he can't understand, and
thinks it is magic.


Plug-in protectors can contribute only if the always required earthing and
a 'whole house' protector exist.

Nonsense.

So he posts insults rather than quote facts and numbers from Martzloff and
other industry professional.

What a joke.

I quote Martzloff and industry professionals, like the IEEE surge guide.
All say plug-in protectors are effective.

Other simple questions 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?


Never once does he or you post a single plug-in protector specification
numbers that defines protection from typically destructive surges.

Many people have posted specs. Always ignored by westom. Then westom
always repeats his lie.

For good reason. No manufacturer makes that numeric claim.

Nonsense.

Some manufacturers even have protected equipment warranties.


In every case, what do professionals define as essential for protection? Earth ground.

Everyone is in favor of earthing electrical systems.

The question is whether plug-in protectors are effective. Both the IEEE
and NIST say they are.


IEEE Guide repeatedly says why effective protector are earthed. Page 33
figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively
through nearby appliances ... because that surge was not earthed BEFORE entering
the building. That protector earthed a surges on the best path - 8000 volts
destructively through TV2.

Repeating for the 3rd time:

Voltage at TV2 without a protector at TV1 - 10,000V.
Voltage at TV2 with a protector at TV1 - 8,000V.
Never explained - how does the protector at TV1 damage TV2.

And
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in this
example? It wouldn't. The village idiot's favorite example is one where
his service panel protector does not protect.

And
- Why does the IEEE guide say in this example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

Westom still has no answers for simple questions.


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

Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors do
NOT work. There are none.

On 10/5/2013 6:57 AM, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 12:16:59 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Page 33 figure 8 - damage because the surge was not earthed by a 'whole house' protector.

Never explained - how a service panel protector would provide *any*
protection from a surge that is between cable and power wiring.

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 10:33:25 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Here you are saying it:

So again you misquote the solution. Propaganda experts are trained in quoting out of context to intentionally distort really. How curious that you also forget to include paragraphs where I define protection as routine inside all appliances. Oh. That means you might have to learn how protection works. And has been success for over 100 years. Nobody likes admitting to manipulation only by advertising myths. bud's job is protect profits by promoting those myths. Where did you get your education and experience? Obviously not by doing this stuff. Apparently by ignoring spec numbers. And by intentionally misreading what professionals have said for over 100 years..

A surge current incoming to a plug-in protector is simultaneously outgoing into an attached or nearby appliance. Why is a grossly undersized power strip protector destroyed? While appliances is undamaged by that current? Well, if a surge is too massive, then the 8000 volts earthed through that appliance (page 33 figure 8) means protection inside TV2 was overwhelmed. That 8000 volts does not exist when a 'whole house' protector is protecting all appliances AND power strip protectors.

The naive only speculate. Naive assume internal appliance protection means MOVs. Nonsense. That wild speculation also identifies one with insufficient electrical (and no design) knowledge. Appliances had internal protection long before PCs existed; as defined by international design standards. Protection that means transients (except a rare and typically destructive one) cause no damage. Anything a power strip might do is often done better inside appliances.

And so IEEE Standards even define an earthed protector as 99.5% of the protection. Leaving a plug-in protector to also do protection - maybe 0.2% of that protection. Specification numbers that the naive never post to recommend that plug-in protector as 100% protection. When will you post a power strip specification number that claims to protect from all types of surges? You never do for one reason - those numbers do not exist.

How do we make typically destructive surges irrelevant? Earth before that current enters a building. Then protection inside appliances makes any residual (tiny) current irrelevant. Then a surge is so tiny as to not even damage undersized plug-in protectors. 'Whole house' protector is even essential for protecting plug-in protectors.

What happens when a surge is too large (ie no earthed 'whole house' protector)? Schneider Electric admits their APC protectors cause house fires. Fires that our sales promoter insists have never happened. Some plug-in protectors are so dangerous that it should be disposed of this minute. How dangerous? Most have been used for decades and still did not cause fire. And yet are so dangerous that even APC (under pressure) now admits the threat. Other protectors are also so dangerous as to be immediately disposed. Or we significantly reduce the threat by earthing one 'whole house' protector. To even protect power strip protectors.

How often do protectors caused house fires (that bud repeatedly said have never happened? Well, how often are surges so massive as to overwhelm protection already inside each appliance? A surge too tiny to harm an appliance may also destroy an undersized and dangerous protector. Protector failure means a potential fire.

Surge protection is about an anomaly that occurs once in many years or a decade. Protectors that can completely fail (a potential fire) may occur with surges too tiny to damage appliance. Effective surge protection (properly earthed) makes such surges irrelevant.

Earthing a 'whole house' protector would help to protect a house from plug-in protector fires. Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. A small reality that explains why many high reliability facilities solve this problem another way. They do not use plug-in protectors. Instead they earth 'whole house' protectors so that protection inside electronics is not overwhelmed. And they upgrade what does the protection - earth ground - to make all 'whole house' protectors even more effective.

On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 11:49:06 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

Surge protection is about an anomaly that occurs once in many years or a decade. Protectors that can completely fail (a potential fire) may occur with surges too tiny to damage appliance. Effective surge protection (properly earthed) makes such surges irrelevant.

Earthing a 'whole house' protector would help to protect a house from plug-in protector fires. Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. A small reality that explains why many high reliability facilities solve this problem another way. They do not use plug-in protectors. Instead they earth 'whole house' protectors so that protection inside electronics is not overwhelmed. And they upgrade what does the protection - earth ground - to make all 'whole house' protectors even more effective.

Not once has anyone said an earth ground is not needed.

What you miss; obviously, is that plug-in protectors DO WORK.

They work in conjunction with earth ground, a "whole house" SPD (surge
protector device) at the electric panel (breaker type or SPD).

I've stated earlier an SPD at the electric panel will not warranty a
sensitive device like a computer, television, etc.

Show us where an anomaly only happens in terms of "years" or a
"decade".

crickets

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 2:49:06 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 10:33:25 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Here you are saying it:



So again you misquote the solution. Propaganda experts are trained in quoting out of context to intentionally distort really. How curious that you also forget to include paragraphs where I define protection as routine inside all appliances.

I forgot it? Good grief. It's on the list of questions that
have been asked for years, including in this very thread.

How can surge protection be effective inside an appliance when
Tom claims that protection is only as good as it's direct connection
to earth ground? How can surge protection using MOVs work inside
appliances, yet even more robust surge protection inside plug-in
power strips, not work?





Oh. That means you might have to learn how protection works. And has been success for over 100 years. Nobody likes admitting to manipulation only by advertising myths. bud's job is protect profits by promoting those myths.. Where did you get your education and experience? Obviously not by doing this stuff. Apparently by ignoring spec numbers. And by intentionally misreading what professionals have said for over 100 years.



I don't ignore spec numbers or what professionals say. Neither does
Bud. We continue to refer you to the IEEE Guide for surge protection.
It shows plug-in surge protectors being used and doesn't say they are
ineffective, cause damage, etc, which is what you claim.

Also, you just claimed specs don't exist for plug-in surge protectors.
I posted the specs for a typical one from APC.






A surge current incoming to a plug-in protector is simultaneously outgoing into an attached or nearby appliance. Why is a grossly undersized power strip protector destroyed? While appliances is undamaged by that current?

Well, assuming your part of your premise is correct, that the plug-in is damaged or destroyed, while the appliance is not, then it would be
because the plug-in worked. Good grief!



Well, if a surge is too massive, then the 8000 volts earthed through that appliance (page 33 figure 8) means protection inside TV2 was overwhelmed. That 8000 volts does not exist when a 'whole house' protector is protecting all appliances AND power strip protectors.



Sigh. The last sentence that is part of fig 8 says:

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


I mean this is quite amazing. But it does show that you can't find
any reference that agrees with you. You have to resort to taking a
section of the IEEE guide that says exactly the opposite of what you
claim and try to lie and make it into say otherwise.





The naive only speculate. Naive assume internal appliance protection means MOVs. Nonsense. That wild speculation also identifies one with insufficient electrical (and no design) knowledge.

From a datasheet of a manufacturer of MOVs:

http://www.ibselectronics.com/ibs/cm...VD2_16-opt.pdf

Metal Oxide Varistors

Applications
€¢ Surge Protection in consumer electronics
€“ industrial electronics
€“ telephone and telecommunication systems
€“ automobile equipment
€“ measuring and controller systems
€“ electronic home appliances
€“ gas and petroleum appliances

From Littlefuse, another manufacturer:


APPLICATION EXAMPLE TYPICAL SERIES SELECTED
€*
TV/VCR/White Goods
Office Equipment
ZA, LA, UltraMOV, €œC€� III, CH, MA
and ML Series


Appliances had internal protection long before PCs existed;

What exactly does a PC have to do with MOVs, except of course
that they are an another example of where they are used.


as defined by international design standards. Protection that means transients (except a rare and typically destructive one) cause no damage. Anything a power strip might do is often done better inside appliances.



And so IEEE Standards even define an earthed protector as 99.5% of the protection. Leaving a plug-in protector to also do protection - maybe 0.2% of that protection.

Speaking of standards and specs, where is the reference for the
above claim?




Specification numbers that the naive never post to recommend that plug-in protector as 100% protection.

Strawman detected. Strawman rejected.
I haven't seen anyone here claim that.



When will you post a power strip specification number that claims to protect from all types of surges? You never do for one reason - those numbers do not exist.



I posted a complete spec for a typical APC plug-in. I've
done it a couple times now. You ignore it. Of course it doesn't
claim to "protect from all types of surges". Neither does the
spec sheet from any of the whole house surge protectors. Including
the mythical one that you keep claiming handles 50K amps and is
available at HD for $50. Link please.






How do we make typically destructive surges irrelevant? Earth before that current enters a building. Then protection inside appliances makes any residual (tiny) current irrelevant. Then a surge is so tiny as to not even damage undersized plug-in protectors. 'Whole house' protector is even essential for protecting plug-in protectors.



I'm still waiting for an explanation to another great question that
I've asked 6 times now. You claimed a 20K amp surge arrives at the
panel protected by a whole house surge protector. Assuming the resistance
from the surge protector to ground is only 1 ohm, a ridiculously low
number and just using Ohm's law, you have 20K volts generated right there
at the panel between the surge protector and earth. Explain how that
does not still present significant surge problems to appliances,
particularly ones connected to more than just the AC? The IEEE guide
shows exactly that. Also, manufacturers of your beloved point of entry
protectors also sell surge protectors to place further inside buildings
to protect equipment and those SPDs don't have a direct connection to
earth ground. Are they running a scam too?





What happens when a surge is too large (ie no earthed 'whole house' protector)? Schneider Electric admits their APC protectors cause house fires. Fires that our sales promoter insists have never happened. Some plug-in protectors are so dangerous that it should be disposed of this minute. How dangerous? Most have been used for decades and still did not cause fire. And yet are so dangerous that even APC (under pressure) now admits the threat. Other protectors are also so dangerous as to be immediately disposed.. Or we significantly reduce the threat by earthing one 'whole house' protector. To even protect power strip protectors.


I'd like to see your reference where Schneider says that the products
they are selling now, that they've been selling the last decade, cause
house fires. There was a problem with surge protectors decades ago,
but AFAIK, they all now have fuses that open in the event of overheating.
And even the ones that did cause a fire, compared to the enormous number
out there, I'll bet they were no more likely to cause a fire than many
other electrical devices in homes.






How often do protectors caused house fires (that bud repeatedly said have never happened?

Why are you asking us that? You should have the numbers.



Well, how often are surges so massive as to overwhelm protection already inside each appliance? A surge too tiny to harm an appliance may also destroy an undersized and dangerous protector.

Total nonsense. The MOVs inside the typical surge protector can
handle far more surge current than those inside an appliance.
Open an appliance and look. Open a surge protector and look.


Protector failure means a potential fire.



Oven failure, dishwasher failure, TV failure, means potential fire.
See how that works?





Surge protection is about an anomaly that occurs once in many years or a decade. Protectors that can completely fail (a potential fire) may occur with surges too tiny to damage appliance.

Explain the physics whereby a surge too tiny to damage an appliance
is going to make a plug-in surge protector fail.




Effective surge protection (properly earthed) makes such surges irrelevant.



The IEEE and NIST disagree.





Earthing a 'whole house' protector would help to protect a house from plug-in protector fires. Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate.

Explain how aircraft are protected from surges. Planes are
fly-by-wire now. They use electronics to move the flight surfaces.
Yet they have no direct earth ground that dissipated hundreds of
thousands of joules.



A small reality that explains why many high reliability facilities solve this problem another way. They do not use plug-in protectors. Instead they earth 'whole house' protectors so that protection inside electronics is not overwhelmed. And they upgrade what does the protection - earth ground - to make all 'whole house' protectors even more effective.

They use a tiered protection approach. Exactly like NIST, IEEE,
major manufacturers of electrical gear, etc all agree on. A similar
tiered strategy for homes, as outlined by the IEEE guide that you
keep misrepresenting, clearly shows plug-ins being used for that
way too.

On 10/6/2013 12:49 PM, westom wrote:

Propaganda experts are trained in quoting out of context to intentionally
distort really.

Westom knows because it is what he does all the time.

That means you might have to learn how protection works.

Westom can't figure out how plug-in protectors work.

Anyone with minimal mental abilities can find out in the IEEE surge
guide, starting page 30.

bud's job is protect profits by promoting those myths.

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

Notice how he never explains how what I write is wrong.
He just ignores it.
Just like he ignores simple questions.

Why is a grossly undersized power strip protector destroyed?

Westom thinks all protectors are grossly undersized.
He ignores an investigation by the NIST surge guru that showed the
energy that can make it to a plug-in protector is surprisingly small -
35 joules worst case. That is for power line surges up to the maximum
that has any reasonable probability of occurring. One of the reasons the
energy is so small is the impedance of the branch circuit wiring - that
the village idiot says I don't know anything about.

Well, if a surge is too massive, then the 8000 volts earthed through
that appliance (page 33 figure 8) means protection inside TV2 was
overwhelmed. That 8000 volts does not exist when a 'whole house'
protector is protecting all appliances AND power strip protectors.

Simple question - never answered:
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in this
example? It wouldn't. The village idiot's favorite example is one where
his service panel protector will not protect. The surge is not on the
power wiring.

Another simple question:
- Why does the IEEE guide say in this example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?


Appliances had internal protection long before PCs existed; as
defined by international design standards.

Cite.


And so IEEE Standards even define an earthed protector as 99.5%
of the protection.

The 99.5% figure comes from the IEEE "Green" book. It is for lighting
rods. It has nothing to do with surge protectors.

As westom said "propaganda experts are trained in quoting out of context
to intentionally distort really."


Schneider Electric admits their APC protectors cause house fires.

Cite.


How often do protectors caused house fires (that bud repeatedly said have never happened?

Cite.

Well, how often are surges so massive as to overwhelm protection already
inside each appliance? A surge too tiny to harm an appliance may also
destroy an undersized and dangerous protector.

Poor westom suffers from hallucinations. His post is full of them.

Protector failure means a
potential fire.

UL1449 required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs in 1998.
With no valid technical arguments westom is forced to use scare tactics.

Westom can't even answer really simple questions - like:
- 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?
- Why did Martzloff say in this paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?


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

Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors do
NOT work. There are none

On 10/6/2013 1:54 PM, Oren wrote:

I've stated earlier an SPD at the electric panel will not warranty a
sensitive device like a computer, television, etc.

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


crickets

On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 09:40:33 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 10/6/2013 1:54 PM, Oren wrote:

I've stated earlier an SPD at the electric panel will not warranty a
sensitive device like a computer, television, etc.

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


Correct. I bet westom will claim this fact is propaganda g