Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
and how to use them safely.

Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
brother) is a licensed union electrician, and sat down with me to talk
about how to choose the best surge protectors for your gadgets, and
how to avoid accidents, electrical fires, and other dangerous
situations when using them. Here's what you need to know.

Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector

How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

First of all, not every power strip is a surge protector. It may sound
basic, but it's a fundamental piece of knowledge you'll need. While a
power strip just splits your outlet into multiple ports, a surge
protector is designed to protect your computer, TV, and other
electronics against power surges and any interference or noise on your
power line. Power surges may not be an everyday event, but they're
common enough that they can damage your equipment. Charles notes:

The main thing for people to pay attention too is that they are in
fact buying a "surge protector" and not a power strip. A consumer
should look for the words surge protection, fused strip, or
interrupter switch. If it says power strip on it it most likely does
not offer surge protection, so pay attention.

You'll almost certainly pay more for a surge protector than a power
strip, but it's worth it. If you're the type to head over to Amazon
and just buy whatever's cheapest, keep this in mind. Don't assume that
because it's in the same category as surge protectors, or even in the
department store hanging next to the surge protectors that it is one.
Choose the Right Surge Protector for Your Needs

How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

There are five major points to consider when buying a surge protector.
They a

Buy the right number of ports. Don't just assume that every surge
protector is six or eight ports. Some of them, like one of my
favorites, sport 12 ports, well spaced so you can use them all. Buying
the right number of ports will make sure you don't have to daisy chain
surge protectors—something we'll get to in a moment.
Consider the gear you'll plug into the surge protector. Think
about the things you're going to plug into the surge protector you're
buying. You can just go all out and buy the best you can afford, but
you'll save some money by buying a surge protector appropriate for the
equipment you'll use it with. Your TV and home entertainment center
will call for a more robust surge protector than the lamp and phone
charger on your nightstand, for example.
Check for the UL seal, and make sure it's a "transient voltage
surge suppressor." Making sure that the surge protector you're
planning to buy is both certified by Underwriter's Laboratories, and
at least meets their UL 1449 standards (required for the label
"transient voltage surge suppressor,") will make sure the surge
protector you take home will actually protect the equipment you plug
into it.
Check the surge protector's energy absorption rating, and its
"clamping voltage." The absorption rating is, as the name implies, how
much energy it can absorb before it fails. You'll want something at
least 6-700 joules or higher. (Higher is better here.) The clamping
voltage is the voltage that will trigger the surge protector—or
essentially when the surge protector wakes up and starts absorbing
energy. Look for something around 400 V or less. Lower is better here.
Finally, see if response time is listed in the product details—it's
good to know, and lower is better.
Check the warranty. Some surge protectors warranty the devices
connected to it for some amount of damages if a power surge does get
through. Check to see what's covered (and what isn't), and how you can
file a warranty claim if the surge protector fails.

Belkin Pivot-Plug Surge Protector

Amazon.com: $24.84

Bottom line: Make sure you're informed before you buy, and read the
back of the box or the product details before you buy anything. You
don't want to invest in a surge protector only to find out that it's
far too weak to protect your devices, or it's a surge protector in
name only. Charles notes that price shouldn't guide your decision,
either:

As far as cost, the most expensive is not always the best. The
best thing to do is figure out what you need to protect and buy
accordingly.

Related
Conserve Surge Protector Saves Energy, Money

Belkin's Conserve Surge Protector with timer knocks out the energy
drain from vampire devices that draw standby power even when they're…
Read…

You might also want to look into other features, like a surge
protector that automatically turn off when your devices turn off or
stop charging, or has a remote control that you can use to turn it on
or off along with the devices on them. The idea is especially good for
surge protectors connected to things that like to live in standby
mode, like game consoles and some TVs, and the remote control options
are great for surge protectors that are hard to get to.
Don't Daisy Chain Multiple Surge Protectors

How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

Odds are you've daisy chained, or plugged a power strip into another
power strip or surge protector, when you were desperate for more
outlets. It's tempting, and it's easy, but it's also dangerous.
Charles explains:

As far as daisy chaining surge protectors, it doesn't work. The
first strip will trip if a second is plugged into it and used. In
theory power strips can be daisy chained since they lack surge
protection, however I would severely advise against it.

Remember in "A Christmas Story," when they had all those cords
plugged in at once and it blew a fuse? Yeah, it's kind of like that
except that overloading the circuit can create the source of ignition
for an electrical fire.

So resist the urge to daisy chain your power strips, or plug a bunch
of power strips into a surge protector. It may be tempting, and you
may look at it from a "eh, it can't hurt if I just do it once"
perspective, but whenever you do it you're taking a risk that you need
to be clear-headed about when you do it. Frankly, we think it's not
worth it when you can buy a surge protector with more ports—or another
surge protector you can put next to your existing one—for a couple of
dollars.

For more reading, check out this Home Depot guide to surge protectors,
which includes not just surge protector strips like we've discussed,
but also whole-home surge protectors you can have installed and more
details on UL certifications for surge protectors. Similarly, this
guide from Tripplite will help you pick a good surge protector for
your needs (although remember Tripplite sells them, so they have a
vested interest). A little forethought, research, and safe practices
will go a long way towards making sure your gadgets are safe from
harm—and that you're not fumbling around behind your gear looking for
spare outlets.

Charles Ravenscraft is a certified union electrician. He graciously
volunteered his expertise for this post, and we thank him.

Photos by Daniel R.Blume, Al Pavangkanan, Joy Mystic, and State Farm.

http://lifehacker.com/your-homes-ele...rou-1409892102

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer
wrote:

Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector

See my recent threads (two) on surge protectors: HVAC disconnect and
whole house (breaker in the electric panel).

There is one poster to not follow for trust. He said something about a
direct ground to earth that was not applicable in my case.

On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:29:44 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer

wrote:



Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector



See my recent threads (two) on surge protectors: HVAC disconnect and

whole house (breaker in the electric panel).



There is one poster to not follow for trust. He said something about a

direct ground to earth that was not applicable in my case.


I'm sure we'll be hearing from him shortly.

There is a lot of bait in that post just waiting for
him. IMO, it's not a very good article either. It misses
important points like buying a surge protector with
cable tv, Ethernet, phone ports in addition to AC outlets
for appliances that use more than just AC so everything
passes through it.

The daisy chaining part I've never heard before. This
guy is claiming that if you plug one surge protector
into another, the first one will trip? First, what's to
trip? The ones I've had, they jut have an on/off switch.
The MOVs inside just sit across the lines, shunting anything
over 400V, etc. So, what is there to trip? And even if
there was, I don't see why plugging one into another
would cause them to not operate correctly.

On 9/27/2013 3:51 PM, Metspitzer wrote:


As far as daisy chaining surge protectors, it doesn't work. The
first strip will trip if a second is plugged into it and used.

I'd like to hear more about the mechanism that makes this happen...

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:58:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:29:44 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer

wrote:



Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector



See my recent threads (two) on surge protectors: HVAC disconnect and

whole house (breaker in the electric panel).



There is one poster to not follow for trust. He said something about a

direct ground to earth that was not applicable in my case.


I'm sure we'll be hearing from him shortly.


Let the beatings commence - AGAIN.

There is a lot of bait in that post just waiting for
him. IMO, it's not a very good article either. It misses
important points like buying a surge protector with
cable tv, Ethernet, phone ports in addition to AC outlets
for appliances that use more than just AC so everything
passes through it.

snipped

Ya'll could talk about air planes (LOL)

On 9/27/2013 4:51 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
and how to use them safely.

Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
brother) is a licensed union electrician, and sat down with me to talk
about how to choose the best surge protectors for your gadgets, and
how to avoid accidents, electrical fires, and other dangerous
situations when using them. Here's what you need to know.

Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector

How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

First of all, not every power strip is a surge protector. It may sound
basic, but it's a fundamental piece of knowledge you'll need. While a
power strip just splits your outlet into multiple ports, a surge
protector is designed to protect your computer, TV, and other
electronics against power surges and any interference or noise on your
power line.

I haven't figured out how noise filters actually do anything useful.

Power surges may not be an everyday event, but they're
common enough that they can damage your equipment. Charles notes:

The main thing for people to pay attention too is that they are in
fact buying a "surge protector" and not a power strip. A consumer
should look for the words surge protection, fused strip, or
interrupter switch. If it says power strip on it it most likely does
not offer surge protection, so pay attention.

You'll almost certainly pay more for a surge protector than a power
strip, but it's worth it. If you're the type to head over to Amazon
and just buy whatever's cheapest, keep this in mind. Don't assume that
because it's in the same category as surge protectors, or even in the
department store hanging next to the surge protectors that it is one.
Choose the Right Surge Protector for Your Needs

How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

There are five major points to consider when buying a surge protector.
They a

Buy the right number of ports. Don't just assume that every surge
protector is six or eight ports. Some of them, like one of my
favorites, sport 12 ports, well spaced so you can use them all. Buying
the right number of ports will make sure you don't have to daisy chain
surge protectors—something we'll get to in a moment.

A multiport protector is likely to refer to connections where coax and
phone can wire through the protector.

You should get a protector with enough outlet for what you want to
plug-in, and space around the outlet is need if you are plugging in wall
warts.

Consider the gear you'll plug into the surge protector. Think
about the things you're going to plug into the surge protector you're
buying. You can just go all out and buy the best you can afford, but
you'll save some money by buying a surge protector appropriate for the
equipment you'll use it with. Your TV and home entertainment center
will call for a more robust surge protector than the lamp and phone
charger on your nightstand, for example.

People use surge protectors for lamps?
I wouldn't use one for a phone charger either unless it was real easy to
use a protector that was around for more important equipment.
And if a load merits a surge protector why would some of them require
significantly less protection?

Check for the UL seal, and make sure it's a "transient voltage
surge suppressor." Making sure that the surge protector you're
planning to buy is both certified by Underwriter's Laboratories, and
at least meets their UL 1449 standards (required for the label
"transient voltage surge suppressor,") will make sure the surge
protector you take home will actually protect the equipment you plug
into it.

Actually UL "lists" equipment. It doesn't "certify".

Check the surge protector's energy absorption rating, and its
"clamping voltage." The absorption rating is, as the name implies, how
much energy it can absorb before it fails. You'll want something at
least 6-700 joules or higher. (Higher is better here.) The clamping
voltage is the voltage that will trigger the surge protector—or
essentially when the surge protector wakes up and starts absorbing
energy. Look for something around 400 V or less. Lower is better here.

330V is the lowest that is in the UL1449 listing standard. And lower is
not necessarily better.

Finally, see if response time is listed in the product details—it's
good to know, and lower is better.

Virtually all plug-in protectors use MOVs. MOVs are fast enough for any
surge. Response time is meaningless.

Check the warranty. Some surge protectors warranty the devices
connected to it for some amount of damages if a power surge does get
through. Check to see what's covered (and what isn't), and how you can
file a warranty claim if the surge protector fails.

Better be a major brand if you expect to use a warranty.

I would only buy a protector with a major brand name anyway.


Belkin Pivot-Plug Surge Protector
Amazon.com: $24.84

No idea what this is about.


Bottom line: Make sure you're informed before you buy, and read the
back of the box or the product details before you buy anything. You
don't want to invest in a surge protector only to find out that it's
far too weak to protect your devices, or it's a surge protector in
name only.

"In name only"?

If UL1449 listed at least a protector provides enough protection to
survive the surges included in the UL testing.

Charles notes that price shouldn't guide your decision,
either:

As far as cost, the most expensive is not always the best. The
best thing to do is figure out what you need to protect and buy
accordingly.

Related
Conserve Surge Protector Saves Energy, Money

Belkin's Conserve Surge Protector with timer knocks out the energy
drain from vampire devices that draw standby power even when they're…
Read…

I can't think of many places where some of these fancy expensive
features would be useful.

The protector for my computer and related stuff is accessible and I turn
it off.

If I turn the protector for my big TV and related stuff off, various
stuff loses programing.


You might also want to look into other features, like a surge
protector that automatically turn off when your devices turn off or
stop charging, or has a remote control that you can use to turn it on
or off along with the devices on them. The idea is especially good for
surge protectors connected to things that like to live in standby
mode, like game consoles and some TVs, and the remote control options
are great for surge protectors that are hard to get to.
Don't Daisy Chain Multiple Surge Protectors

Actually I agree with this.


How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

Odds are you've daisy chained, or plugged a power strip into another
power strip or surge protector, when you were desperate for more
outlets. It's tempting, and it's easy, but it's also dangerous.
Charles explains:

As far as daisy chaining surge protectors, it doesn't work. The
first strip will trip if a second is plugged into it and used.

I agree with mike and trader that this is idiocy.

In
theory power strips can be daisy chained since they lack surge
protection, however I would severely advise against it.

It is actually a violation of UL listing to daisy chain power strips,
including surge protectors.


Remember in "A Christmas Story," when they had all those cords
plugged in at once and it blew a fuse? Yeah, it's kind of like that
except that overloading the circuit can create the source of ignition
for an electrical fire.

I suspect that is why UL doesn't want power strips daisy chained, but
with minimal intelligence overloading can be avoided.


So resist the urge to daisy chain your power strips, or plug a bunch
of power strips into a surge protector. It may be tempting, and you
may look at it from a "eh, it can't hurt if I just do it once"
perspective, but whenever you do it you're taking a risk that you need
to be clear-headed about when you do it. Frankly, we think it's not
worth it when you can buy a surge protector with more ports—or another
surge protector you can put next to your existing one—for a couple of
dollars.

Totally missing, as trader noted, and of major importance:
All interconnected equipment must be plugged into the same protector.
All external connections, including phone and cable, _must_ go through
the protector.

Any competent manufacturer will tell you the same thing. If you don't
observe that restriction you may well be better off not using a surge
protector.


For more reading, check out this Home Depot guide to surge protectors,
which includes not just surge protector strips like we've discussed,
but also whole-home surge protectors you can have installed and more
details on UL certifications for surge protectors. Similarly, this
guide from Tripplite will help you pick a good surge protector for
your needs (although remember Tripplite sells them, so they have a
vested interest). A little forethought, research, and safe practices
will go a long way towards making sure your gadgets are safe from
harm—and that you're not fumbling around behind your gear looking for
spare outlets.

Charles Ravenscraft is a certified union electrician. He graciously
volunteered his expertise for this post, and we thank him.

Electricians, union or otherwise, are not necessarily experts on surge
protection.

This one missed one of the most important points - all external
connections must go through the protector. The electrician on This Old
House, in a recent thread, missed the same thing.


Photos by Daniel R.Blume, Al Pavangkanan, Joy Mystic, and State Farm.

http://lifehacker.com/your-homes-ele...rou-1409892102

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer
wrote:

Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
and how to use them safely.

Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
brother) is a licensed union electrician,

Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?
Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.

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.

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.

I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:12:47 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:



Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
brother) is a licensed union electrician,

Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?
Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.
I'd think that some may know, others not. It is not something you
study in "How to Wire a Receptacle" but like any trade, some study
deeper.





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.

Then I need one for my computer. It is less than 3 feet from the main
coming into the house and the panel. Actually, I use a battery backup
that also protects me from little glitches too.





I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

Had one of those too. Nothing happened to my computer, but I did have
to scrap my TV and buy a 47" flat screen. Also had to pick up pieces
of the blown apart receptacle where it came into the detached garage
and then into the house. Lost the TV, Receiver, doorbell, circuit
breaker.

On 9/28/2013 11:12 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400,
wrote:

Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
and how to use them safely.

Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
brother) is a licensed union electrician,

Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?
Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.

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.

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.

You are talking about surges that originate inside the house. I agree
they are not a problem. The 2 sources I often post, from the IEEE and
NIST, do not include surges originating inside the house as a problem. I
don't remember that competent manufacturers talk about surges
originating inside a house.

Lightning, however, can be a problem. So can a number of normal and
abnormal power utility events.

As I have often written, a plug-in protector with good ratings and
connected correctly is very likely to protect from a very near very
strong lightning strike.

A protector at the service panel is very likely to protect anything
connected only to power wiring from a very near very strong lightning
strike.

The IEEE and NIST surge guides are to give you information to protect
from lightning strikes.


I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

In your opinion.

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges. Plugin types that costs dollars to make while selling for tens or 100 dollars. He is right about best protection damped out in the first six feet. But only if a completely different device (also misleadingly called a surge protector) exists there.

One incoming wire already connects to earth. So a destructive surge is damped out in the first feet. Other AC wires are only earthed if a 'whole house' protector makes that low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to single point ground. Only then are surges made completely irrelevant in the first feet. If that completely different device ('whole house' protector) does not exist, then surges are inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years. In your case, apparently once in thirty years. Those cheap power strips did exactly what they claim - no protection from destructive surges. Why do so many recommend replacing power strip protectors every couple years? Because advertising says so. Most who recommend plug-in protectors are educated by advertising.. And not by hard facts.

Daily surges that so many fear are only noise - made completely irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance - even dimmer switches. Effective protection means destructive surges (even direct lightning strikes) are damped out when connection low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth.

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.

"No surge protector would have stopped that motha". Correct. Any protector that stops, blocks, or absorbs a surge is a scam. Why is a 'whole house' protector so effective? 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.

Another probably has posted the usual cut and paste myths. With text to keep you confused. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8 shows how plug-in protectors even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively via any nearby appliance.. Nothing protects once a destructive surge is all but invited inside. Somehow adjacent protectors must somehow block or absorb a surge. Nothing stops or blocks destructive surges. 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. That superior solution (because is does not stop surges) also costs tens or 100 times less money.

Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Either harmlessly in earth (damped out in the first six feet). Or destructively via appliances. Surge damage is determined by decisions made by a homeowner. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - since nothing an stop a surge.

Why do companies with better integrity manufacturer 'whole house' protectors? Do you want protection. Or do you want to enrich them for selling a $3 power strip with ten cent protector parts for $25 or $80? Better is to put your money into real world protection. That means a 'whole house' protector (a completely different device) from companies such as Leviton, Syscom, Siemens, Polyphaser, Intermatic, ABB, General Electric, Square D, or Cutler-Hammer - to name but a few. An effective Cutler-Hammer solution was selling in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. Then grossly undersized power strip protectors need not create house fires.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:14:11 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges. Plugin types that costs dollars to make while selling for tens or 100 dollars. He is right about best protection damped out in the first six feet. But only if a completely different device (also misleadingly called a surge protector) exists there.

One incoming wire already connects to earth. So a destructive surge is damped out in the first feet. Other AC wires are only earthed if a 'whole house' protector makes that low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to single point ground. Only then are surges made completely irrelevant in the first feet. If that completely different device ('whole house' protector) does not exist, then surges are inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years. In your case, apparently once in thirty years. Those cheap power strips did exactly what they claim - no protection from destructive surges. Why do so many recommend replacing power strip protectors every couple years? Because advertising says so. Most who recommend plug-in protectors are educated by advertising. And not by hard facts.

Daily surges that so many fear are only noise - made completely irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance - even dimmer switches. Effective protection means destructive surges (even direct lightning strikes) are damped out when connection low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth.

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.

"No surge protector would have stopped that motha". Correct. Any protector that stops, blocks, or absorbs a surge is a scam. Why is a 'whole house' protector so effective? 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.

Another probably has posted the usual cut and paste myths. With text to keep you confused. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8 shows how plug-in protectors even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively via any nearby appliance. Nothing protects once a destructive surge is all but invited inside. Somehow adjacent protectors must somehow block or absorb a surge. Nothing stops or blocks destructive surges. 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. That superior solution (because is does not stop surges) also costs tens or 100 times less money.

Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Either harmlessly in earth (damped out in the first six feet). Or destructively via appliances. Surge damage is determined by decisions made by a homeowner. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - since nothing an stop a surge.

Why do companies with better integrity manufacturer 'whole house' protectors? Do you want protection. Or do you want to enrich them for selling a $3 power strip with ten cent protector parts for $25 or $80? Better is to put your money into real world protection. That means a 'whole house' protector (a completely different device) from companies such as Leviton, Syscom, Siemens, Polyphaser, Intermatic, ABB, General Electric, Square D, or Cutler-Hammer - to name but a few. An effective Cutler-Hammer solution was selling in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. Then grossly undersized power strip protectors need not create house fires.

I *knew* this bait was just too tempting for W_Tom to refuse. The
idiot can't even figure out how to use a newsreader.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:14:11 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

right on queue

Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years

Does that include Leap years?

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer

wrote:



Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is

why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's

televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are

alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an

electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,

and how to use them safely.



Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's

brother) is a licensed union electrician,



Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?

Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.



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.



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.

What makes you think this person knows anything more than the
electrician you just criticized. Was he an electrical engineer,
familiar with surge protection concepts, or did he work
the company phone?




The transient spikes

are damped out in just a few feet of house wiring, I think he said 6

feet.

BS. Relevant documents from NIST, IEEE have been posted
here many times and they sure don't say anything like that.
Maybe you can explain to us the physics behind how 6 ft of
house wiring stops a surge.



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.

Refrigerators and similar appliances in the house typically don't
create the surges that need to be protected against.


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.



Well that's true if the lightning bolt directly hits the TV
sitting in the living room. But that is almost impossible.
The surges from lightning that damage appliances in a house
are typically from lighting striking nearby,
eg hitting the utility lines along the street, the service
cable going to the house, etc. That creates a powerful surge,
on the lines going into the house, but it's a small amount
of the total energy from the lightning strike. Surge protectors are
effective in dealing with those surges. If they are not,
why do you think companies that have electronic eqpt
to protect, eg Telco, cable company, etc all use surge protection?



I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and

have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on

24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a

radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge

protector would have stopped that motha.

Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge
protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.

Read what the IEEE panel of engineering professionals says:

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

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:29:42 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
Does that include Leap years?

A leap year is the year you jump because a strike was so close.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:29:42 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:14:11 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

right on queue

Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years

Does that include Leap years?

Nah, W_Tom's surges are caused by broken mirrors.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:26:06 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:29:42 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
Does that include Leap years?

A leap year is the year you jump because a strike was so close.

Do you know what a leap day is?

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:38:56 -0600, bud-- wrote:

On 9/28/2013 11:12 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400,
wrote:

Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
and how to use them safely.

Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
brother) is a licensed union electrician,

Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?
Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.

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.

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.

You are talking about surges that originate inside the house. I agree
they are not a problem. The 2 sources I often post, from the IEEE and
NIST, do not include surges originating inside the house as a problem. I
don't remember that competent manufacturers talk about surges
originating inside a house.

Lightning, however, can be a problem. So can a number of normal and
abnormal power utility events.

As I have often written, a plug-in protector with good ratings and
connected correctly is very likely to protect from a very near very
strong lightning strike.

A protector at the service panel is very likely to protect anything
connected only to power wiring from a very near very strong lightning
strike.

The IEEE and NIST surge guides are to give you information to protect
from lightning strikes.


I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

In your opinion.


Absolutely IMHO. The surges from outside the house are even less of a
problem because typically you've got dozens of feet of wire between
where your service entrance is and where the wire to it connects to
"the mains". And people in areas where the "grid" is buried
underground have even less need to worry about "surges".

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:14:11 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges. Plugin types that costs dollars to make while selling for tens or 100 dollars. He is right about best protection damped out in the first six feet. But only if a completely different device (also misleadingly called a surge protector) exists there.

One incoming wire already connects to earth. So a destructive surge is damped out in the first feet. Other AC wires are only earthed if a 'whole house' protector makes that low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to single point ground. Only then are surges made completely irrelevant in the first feet. If that completely different device ('whole house' protector) does not exist, then surges are inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years. In your case, apparently once in thirty years. Those cheap power strips did exactly what they claim - no protection from destructive surges. Why do so many recommend replacing power strip protectors every couple years? Because advertising says so. Most who recommend plug-in protectors are educated by advertising. And not by hard facts.

Daily surges that so many fear are only noise - made completely irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance - even dimmer switches. Effective protection means destructive surges (even direct lightning strikes) are damped out when connection low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth.

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.

"No surge protector would have stopped that motha". Correct. Any protector that stops, blocks, or absorbs a surge is a scam. Why is a 'whole house' protector so effective? 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.

Another probably has posted the usual cut and paste myths. With text to keep you confused. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8 shows how plug-in protectors even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively via any nearby appliance. Nothing protects once a destructive surge is all but invited inside. Somehow adjacent protectors must somehow block or absorb a surge. Nothing stops or blocks destructive surges. 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. That superior solution (because is does not stop surges) also costs tens or 100 times less money.

Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Either harmlessly in earth (damped out in the first six feet). Or destructively via appliances. Surge damage is determined by decisions made by a homeowner. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - since nothing an stop a surge.

Why do companies with better integrity manufacturer 'whole house' protectors? Do you want protection. Or do you want to enrich them for selling a $3 power strip with ten cent protector parts for $25 or $80? Better is to put your money into real world protection. That means a 'whole house' protector (a completely different device) from companies such as Leviton, Syscom, Siemens, Polyphaser, Intermatic, ABB, General Electric, Square D, or Cutler-Hammer - to name but a few. An effective Cutler-Hammer solution was selling in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. Then grossly undersized power strip protectors need not create house fires.


Excellent info.

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:48:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer

wrote:



Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is

why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's

televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are

alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an

electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,

and how to use them safely.



Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's

brother) is a licensed union electrician,



Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?

Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.



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.



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.

What makes you think this person knows anything more than the
electrician you just criticized. Was he an electrical engineer,
familiar with surge protection concepts, or did he work
the company phone?




The transient spikes

are damped out in just a few feet of house wiring, I think he said 6

feet.

BS. Relevant documents from NIST, IEEE have been posted
here many times and they sure don't say anything like that.
Maybe you can explain to us the physics behind how 6 ft of
house wiring stops a surge.



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.

Refrigerators and similar appliances in the house typically don't
create the surges that need to be protected against.


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.



Well that's true if the lightning bolt directly hits the TV
sitting in the living room. But that is almost impossible.
The surges from lightning that damage appliances in a house
are typically from lighting striking nearby,
eg hitting the utility lines along the street, the service
cable going to the house, etc. That creates a powerful surge,
on the lines going into the house, but it's a small amount
of the total energy from the lightning strike. Surge protectors are
effective in dealing with those surges. If they are not,
why do you think companies that have electronic eqpt
to protect, eg Telco, cable company, etc all use surge protection?



I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and

have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on

24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a

radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge

protector would have stopped that motha.

Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge
protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.

Read what the IEEE panel of engineering professionals says:

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


That's lightening protection, not the "surge protection" the scammers
are selling.

On Monday, September 30, 2013 8:49:54 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
On 9/29/2013 9:14 AM, westom wrote:



The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges.



What a surprise. The village idiot is here with his misrepresentations,

and lies.



And finally, after all these years and all those posts
Tom's actually found someone, Ashton, who agrees with him.





But no answers to 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?

- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE

example, page 33?

- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only

effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport

[plug-in] protector"?

- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this

paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge

protector]"?

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

do they drag an earthing chain)?



Still missing - anyone who agrees with westom that plug-in protectors do

not work.



For real science read the IEEE surge guide (posted by trader) and the

NIST surge guide:

And also:

http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/sp...%20happen!.pdf

Both surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:48:38 PM UTC-4, 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. Therefore nearby appliances were damaged by 8000 volts. How can this be since you claim a surge can be inside the house and never cause damage. Oh. You are attacking the messenger because you have no facts.

Protection means a surge current is not inside the house. Any protector that would stop or absorb that current at the appliance is ... well where is that manufacturer spec number that claims protection? Oh. You never provided one for one good reason. Even the manufacturer does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. So you attack the messenger rather than post facts.

Even the IEEE Guide shows what happens when a surge is not properly earthed by one 'whole house' protector. Appliances damaged by 8000 volts. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8.

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:32:46 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:48:38 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:



On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer



wrote:







Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is



why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's



televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are



alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an



electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,



and how to use them safely.







Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's



brother) is a licensed union electrician,







Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?



Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.







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.







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.



What makes you think this person knows anything more than the

electrician you just criticized. Was he an electrical engineer,

familiar with surge protection concepts, or did he work

the company phone?









The transient spikes



are damped out in just a few feet of house wiring, I think he said 6



feet.



BS. Relevant documents from NIST, IEEE have been posted

here many times and they sure don't say anything like that.

Maybe you can explain to us the physics behind how 6 ft of

house wiring stops a surge.







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.



Refrigerators and similar appliances in the house typically don't

create the surges that need to be protected against.





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.







Well that's true if the lightning bolt directly hits the TV

sitting in the living room. But that is almost impossible.

The surges from lightning that damage appliances in a house

are typically from lighting striking nearby,

eg hitting the utility lines along the street, the service

cable going to the house, etc. That creates a powerful surge,

on the lines going into the house, but it's a small amount

of the total energy from the lightning strike. Surge protectors are

effective in dealing with those surges. If they are not,

why do you think companies that have electronic eqpt

to protect, eg Telco, cable company, etc all use surge protection?







I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and



have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on



24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a



radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge



protector would have stopped that motha.



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

protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.



Read what the IEEE panel of engineering professionals says:



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





That's lightening protection, not the "surge protection" the scammers

are selling.

"Where do you think most destructive surges seen by appliances
like a TV or PC come from? Did you bother to even read the IEEE guide?"


1. INTRODUCTION
This guide is intended to provide useful information about the proper specification
and application of surge protectors, to protect houses and their contents from
lightning and other electrical surges. The guide is written for electricians,
electronics technicians and engineers, electrical inspectors, building designers,
and others with some technical background, and the need to understand lightning
protection.
Surge protection has become a much more complex and important issue in recent
years."


Lightning is the most common sources of these destructive
surges. As Bud pointed out there are other possible sources
from utility events as well. You, in your post, basically
dismissed the possibility of protecting against lightning surges.

"I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge protector would have stopped that motha. "


The IEEE guide discusses exactly that situation. They show how
a lighting strike to the utility lines near a home creates
a surge at the appliance and they show a tiered
protection strategy that would have prevented the above damage
that you had. That strategy includes the use of multi-port,
plug-in surge protectors.
Also note that nowhere does that IEEE guide
written by several industry engineers who are experts
in the field say that 6 feet of wire will stop the typical
destructive surge, that plug-in surge protectors are useless, etc.
Did 6 ft stop your surge? Good grief.

On 9/29/2013 9:14 AM, westom wrote:

The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges.

What a surprise. The village idiot is here with his misrepresentations,
and lies.

But no answers to 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?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example, page 33?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

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

For real science read the IEEE surge guide (posted by trader) and the
NIST surge guide:
And also:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/sp...%20happen!.pdf
Both surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

On 9/29/2013 8:28 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:38:56 -0600, wrote:

On 9/28/2013 11:12 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400,
wrote:

Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
and how to use them safely.

Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
brother) is a licensed union electrician,

Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?
Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.

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.

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.

You are talking about surges that originate inside the house. I agree
they are not a problem. The 2 sources I often post, from the IEEE and
NIST, do not include surges originating inside the house as a problem. I
don't remember that competent manufacturers talk about surges
originating inside a house.

Lightning, however, can be a problem. So can a number of normal and
abnormal power utility events.

As I have often written, a plug-in protector with good ratings and
connected correctly is very likely to protect from a very near very
strong lightning strike.

A protector at the service panel is very likely to protect anything
connected only to power wiring from a very near very strong lightning
strike.

The IEEE and NIST surge guides are to give you information to protect
from lightning strikes.


I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

In your opinion.


Absolutely IMHO. The surges from outside the house are even less of a
problem because typically you've got dozens of feet of wire between
where your service entrance is and where the wire to it connects to
"the mains". And people in areas where the "grid" is buried
underground have even less need to worry about "surges".

Lightning strikes are basically current sources. Strong surges can cause
arc-over at a service panel - about 6,000V. "Dozens of feet of wire"
give no protection.

What "dozens of feet" may refer to is that a relatively short length of
wire will significantly lower the "rise time" of a very fast surge,
which could affect the "response time" for a protector. But MOVs are
fast enough for surges.

Perhaps you could read the NIST surge guide. You might learn something.

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 11:14:11 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and

have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on

24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the **** out of a

radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge

protector would have stopped that motha.



The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges.

The first lie. How do you know what some guy at a computer
club was or wasn't talking about? Were you there?



Plugin types that costs dollars to make while selling for tens or 100 dollars.

Imagine that. By the time a product goes from manufacturing
to being bought in a store, there is considerable markup along
the way.




He is right about best protection damped out in the first six feet. But only if a completely different device (also misleadingly called a surge protector) exists there.


Good grief. There was no mention of ANY surge protector. The
"computer club guy", we are told, said just 6 ft of wire is all
that's needed period.





One incoming wire already connects to earth. So a destructive surge is damped out in the first feet. Other AC wires are only earthed if a 'whole house' protector makes that low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to single point ground. Only then are surges made completely irrelevant in the first feet.

The IEEE guide disagrees. They clearly show the need for
multi-port surge protectors to protect appliances connected
to more than just the AC, eg a TV or PC connected to cable,
phone, Ethernet, etc.



If that completely different device ('whole house' protector) does not exist, then surges are inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances..



Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years. In your case, apparently once in thirty years. Those cheap power strips did exactly what they claim - no protection from destructive surges.

If it's just a power strip with no surge protection, then
it's true that it has no surge protection. It doesn't claim to
have surge protection either.



Why do so many recommend replacing power strip protectors every couple years? Because advertising says so. Most who recommend plug-in protectors are educated by advertising. And not by hard facts.



Now you've conflated power strip type SURGE PROTECTORS, ie power
strips that are rated for surge protection with the above ones
that are not surge protectors and don't claim to be.





Daily surges that so many fear are only noise - made completely irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance - even dimmer switches.

I don't know what "many fear" or think about surges.
I've always been primarily concerned about surges
originating on the utility lines.




Effective protection means destructive surges (even direct lightning strikes) are damped out when connection low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth.



Still waiting all these years for an answer as to if no
protection is possible without a 10 ft low impedance connection
to earth, how are avionics protected in aircraft?




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.



Of course as has been pointed out by Bud a zillion times now,
the chance of that 20,000 amps making it to a surge protector
is very small. That much energy arcs over and most of the
energy in a lightning strike gets dissipated before it even
gets to the surge protector.




"No surge protector would have stopped that motha". Correct. Any protector that stops, blocks, or absorbs a surge is a scam.

Strawman detected. Strawman rejected. Perhaps you'd like to
show us a surge protector from a major manufacturer that says
their product "absorbs" a surge.


Why is a 'whole house' protector so effective? 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.



Why are avionics on airplanes protected without a direct wire
to earth?





Another probably has posted the usual cut and paste myths. With text to keep you confused. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8 shows how plug-in protectors even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively via any nearby appliance. Nothing protects once a destructive surge is all but invited inside. Somehow adjacent protectors must somehow block or absorb a surge. Nothing stops or blocks destructive surges.

It's unbelievable that you have the balls to actually keep
bringing this up and trying to use it to lie. Does the IEEE
say what you claim, that the surge protector on TV1 "caused"
the damage on TV2? No. They show the surge protector on
TV1 working, TV1 having no damage. TV2 without a surge protector
they show being damaged. And then they clearly state:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"
That statement is the last line of the paragraph that's part of fig 8.

That is 180 deg opposite of what you claim. Also, on the page
before, they show another example of a plug-in surge protector
being used to protect a TV from a destructive surge. Everyone
can see it for themselves:

pages 32 and 33,

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

Two examples of plug-in protectors being used, right
in the IEEE guide. Now, who should we believe? The
IEEE expert engineers, or you? Where are YOUR references?



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. That superior solution (because is does not stop surges) also costs tens or 100 times less money.



And all those "facilities", eg telcos, also use a tiered
strategy, just like the IEEE recommends. They don't rely
on just a surge protector on the
lines where they enter the building. Telephone line cards
for example, have surge protection on them too.





Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate.

If that's all that's required, then the lightning strike at
the utility line 200 ft from the house won't cause any
problems inside the house, right? Because that's where
the hundreds of thousands of joules is dissipated, ie
where the lightning strike was. Only a small fraction of
that energy makes it to the house, to the appliance, etc.




Either harmlessly in earth (damped out in the first six feet). Or destructively via appliances. Surge damage is determined by decisions made by a homeowner. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - since nothing an stop a surge.



Are those airplanes connected with a 6 ft wire to earth?






Why do companies with better integrity manufacturer 'whole house' protectors?

The problem here is your faulty definition of "better integrity".
You claim any company that makes plug-in surge protectors is
a scam. Yet there are companies like GE making them. And I
believe Bud has shown you examples where companies that make
whole house types also talk about using plug-ins too. Just
like IEEE.


Do you want protection. Or do you want to enrich them for selling a $3 power strip with ten cent protector parts for $25 or $80? Better is to put your money into real world protection. That means a 'whole house' protector (a completely different device) from companies such as Leviton, Syscom, Siemens, Polyphaser, Intermatic, ABB, General Electric, Square D, or Cutler-Hammer - to name but a few. An effective Cutler-Hammer solution was selling in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. Then grossly undersized power strip protectors need not create house fires.

Better take GE off that list. They sell plug-ins. Also another
question asked and never answered all these years. Where is the
link to that surge protector at HD that is rated at 50K amps for
$50?

On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:44:59 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:48:38 PM UTC-4, 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"

They show two separate instances of how to protect appliances, the
only two in fact, and both show the use of plug-in surge protectors.

Only a liar would turn that into:

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


Therefore nearby appliances were damaged by 8000 volts. How can this be since you claim a surge can be inside the house and never cause damage. Oh.

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




You are attacking the messenger because you have no facts.



I have the IEEE guide. It's quite obvious you have no credible
references at all that agree with your assertions. That's why
you have to take the IEEE guide and totally misrepresent and lie
about what it actually says. They show one TV protected from
a surge by a plug-in. The second TV, with no plug-in protector,
gets damaged. The IEEE guides states:

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

And you try to turn that into plug-in surge protectors being
useless, can't work because they have no earth ground, cause
damage, etc?

Good grief!




Protection means a surge current is not inside the house.

Again, 180deg opposite the IEEE guide.



Any protector that would stop or absorb that current at the appliance is ... well where is that manufacturer spec number that claims protection? Oh. You never provided one for one good reason.

Here's an example from APC:

https://www.apc.com/products/resourc...ase_sku=P6BMP4


Output
Number of Outlets

6


Receptacle Style

NEMA 5-15R


Input

Nominal Input Voltage

120V


Input Frequency

50/60 Hz +/- 5 Hz (auto sensing)



Input Connections

NEMA 5-15P NEMA 5-15P



Maximum Line Current per phase

15A



Cord Length

1.83 meters


Surge Protection and Filtering

Surge energy rating

490 Joules


eP Joule Rating

1080



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

20 dB


Peak Current Normal Mode

10 kAmps


Peak Current Common Mode

20 kAmps



Let Through Voltage Rating

330



Physical


Net Weight

0.45 KG

Maximum Height

292.00 mm

Maximum Width

57.00 mm

Maximum Depth

38.00 mm



Happy now?


Even the manufacturer does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. So you attack the messenger rather than post facts.



Of course the manufacturer's claim that they protect from
typical surges.





Even the IEEE Guide shows what happens when a surge is not properly earthed by one 'whole house' protector. Appliances damaged by 8000 volts. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8.

What the IEEE guide actually shows is a diagram with two
TV's. TV1 is protected by a plug-in surge protector and
has no damage. TV2 has no surge protector and is damaged.
IEEE then states:

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

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.

see why I told him who I could trust?

That boy likes a good spanking here :-\

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.





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.

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.

On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:10:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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:

It protects TV1 by earthing the surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2. If you need a power strip protector on TV2, then you need one on every appliance including every clock, furnace, dishwasher, clock radio, etc. How do you put a protector on each GFCI? Why would anyone spend over $2500 on plug-in protectors when one 'whole house' protector does more for only $1 per protected appliance? Because naysayers who never did this stuff recommend the scam.

So you advocate 8000 volts inside a building as acceptable? Why is that type of transient never acceptable in any facility that cannot have damage? It is called hearsay. Many automatically believe hearsay without any doubts, questions, or a demand for how it works. Protection is always about a surge current earthed outside the building. So that 8000 volts is not hunting for earth destructively via any appliance. For superior protection that costs tens or 100 times less money.

Plug-in protectors do virtually no protection from typically destructive surges. They are for another surge that typically does no damage. Plug-in protectors are implemented only after a 'whole house' protector is installed (by people who actually do this stuff). Plug-in protectors even need to be protected by a 'whole house' protector. Since fire is another outgoing problem with those undersized and high profit SPDs.

The IEEE Guide says what effective protectors must do:
2.2 Surge Protective Device Ratings
There are three requirements of the service entrance SPD. They
are as follows:
1) To suppress the larger surges from the outside environment
to levels that would not be damaging to equipment at the
service entrance, or to equipment (air conditioning, wired-in
appliances) directly connected to the branch circuits.
2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream SPDs
(including multiport SPDs).
3) To stop the large lightning currents from passing into
the house wiring system and damaging the wiring or inducing
large voltages that would damage electronic equipment.

That is what effective surge protection does. That is never accomplished with any plug-in protector. Attacking the messenger may convince the naive. But it does not prove a power strip does any protection from a typically destructive surge.

Then the Guide says what effective protectors do and what a power strip protector never does:
2.3.1 Grounding
An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical
for the successful operation of an SPD. High surge
currents impinging on a power distribution system
having a relatively high grounding resistance can
create enormous ground potential rises(see Section
4 beginning on page 30), resulting in damage.
Therefore, an evaluation of the service entrance
grounding system at the time of the SPD
installation is very important.

What do you ignore because you never did this stuff? Earth ground. Those educated by advertising never discuss the most important component in every protection system: single point earth ground.

A protector (SPD) is only as effective as its earth ground. Intentionally ignoring IEEE Guide paragraphs that you do not understand does not prove you have higher intelligence. Attacking the messenger while ignoring what the Guide really says you are easily manipulated by sales myths.

The IEEE Guide says things you ignore to remain deceived. The only solution used in every facility that cannot have damage is earthing. With low impedance (another phrase you intentionally ignore) connection to that ground via a wire or 'whole house' protector. Some facilities ban power strip protectors due to a fire risk and other problems. And because a properly earthed 'whole house' solution does over 99.5% of the protection.

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:29:40 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:10:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:

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:



It protects TV1 by earthing the surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2.

It protects TV1 by clamping the voltages on all the cables going
into TV1.


If you need a power strip protector on TV2, then you need one on every appliance including every clock, furnace, dishwasher, clock radio, etc.

Per IEEE, you definitely need multi-port ones on appliances that connect
to more that just AC, eg TV, computer, DVR, etc. because a whole house
surge protector is not sufficient. Additionally, a plug-in can provide
additional protection for any appliances that are particularly sensitive
and costly. Again, the concept here is tiered protection. A whole house
protector is the first line of defense, but not necessarily sufficient
by itself.

As I just pointed out, in a thread last week, Oren asked if he could
have a whole house surge protector as well as one that is already
installed on his outdoor AC unit. Eventually you replied that, yes,
it was OK. I didn't see you saying that the one on the AC unit is
worthless, will cause damage, etc because it has no direct connection
to earth ground of it's own. That, again, is a similar example of tiered
protection.


How do you put a protector on each GFCI?

No one would because if a GFCI is damaged by a surge, it
can be replaced for $10. It's impractical to protect and
not worth it. The $1500 TV, the $400 DVR, are worth protecting
and easily done.


Why would anyone spend over $2500 on plug-in protectors when one 'whole house' protector does more for only $1 per protected appliance? Because naysayers who never did this stuff recommend the scam.



So the engineering professionals that wrote the IEEE guide are
scamming naysayers? From the IEEE guide:

"For complete protection, plug-in protectors
should be used in conjunction with the panel protectors described here. These
SPDs are normally located at the protected equipment and are discussed in
Section 5 of this Guide."



So you advocate 8000 volts inside a building as acceptable?

Apparently you yourself do. You like whole house surge protectors,
right? Where do they typically go? Many, probably the vast majority,
are at the panel. Again, referring back to Oren's question last week,
that is where his was going. Still with me? In the previous post,
you claimed that a lightning strike presents a typical surge of 20K amps.
And that the minimum rating for a whole house surge protector should
be 50K amps. Let's say that short, direct connection to earth ground
has a resistance of just 1 ohm. V = IR. You have 20,000 volts right
there at the panel, inside the house. And that is just using a resistance
of 1 ohm. I actuality, since it's a fast rise time surge, the impedance
of that ground connection is going to be significantly higher than 1 ohm.

Note that I don't believe for a second that 20K amps is going to make
it to the panel. The main energy of a lightning strike will almost
never make it into the house itself. But, I'm just using YOUR claims
to show that it doesn't add up. If what you say is true, then you have
20K volts, 50K volts, right there at the panel.







Why is that type of transient never acceptable in any facility that cannot have damage? It is called hearsay. Many automatically believe hearsay without any doubts, questions, or a demand for how it works. Protection is always about a surge current earthed outside the building. So that 8000 volts is not hunting for earth destructively via any appliance. For superior protection that costs tens or 100 times less money.



Again, the concept is TIERED protection. That is exactly what facilities
like Telcos do. They don't just rely on surge protection at the point of
entry. They supplement it with additional protection, eg on the linecards,
to deal with the part of the surge that can make it past the first line
of defense.

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

"For complete protection, plug-in protectors
should be used in conjunction with the panel protectors described here. These
SPDs are normally located at the protected equipment and are discussed in
Section 5 of this Guide."





Plug-in protectors do virtually no protection from typically destructive surges. They are for another surge that typically does no damage. Plug-in protectors are implemented only after a 'whole house' protector is installed (by people who actually do this stuff). Plug-in protectors even need to be protected by a 'whole house' protector. Since fire is another outgoing problem with those undersized and high profit SPDs.



Back to the fire nonsense.





The IEEE Guide says what effective protectors must do:

2.2 Surge Protective Device Ratings

There are three requirements of the service entrance SPD. They

are as follows:

1) To suppress the larger surges from the outside environment

to levels that would not be damaging to equipment at the

service entrance, or to equipment (air conditioning, wired-in

appliances) directly connected to the branch circuits.

2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream SPDs

(including multiport SPDs).

3) To stop the large lightning currents from passing into

the house wiring system and damaging the wiring or inducing

large voltages that would damage electronic equipment.



That is what effective surge protection does. That is never accomplished with any plug-in protector. Attacking the messenger may convince the naive. But it does not prove a power strip does any protection from a typically destructive surge.



You left out this part of the IEEE guide that specifically addresses
plug-in surge protectors:




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

"For complete protection, plug-in protectors
should be used in conjunction with the panel protectors described here. These
SPDs are normally located at the protected equipment and are discussed in
Section 5 of this Guide."

Note that they don't say they start fires, are ineffective, cause
damage, etc.


Then the Guide says what effective protectors do and what a power strip protector never does:

2.3.1 Grounding

An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical

for the successful operation of an SPD. High surge

currents impinging on a power distribution system

having a relatively high grounding resistance can

create enormous ground potential rises(see Section

4 beginning on page 30), resulting in damage.

Therefore, an evaluation of the service entrance

grounding system at the time of the SPD

installation is very important.



What do you ignore because you never did this stuff? Earth ground. Those educated by advertising never discuss the most important component in every protection system: single point earth ground.



Why do you only pay attention to the part of the IEEE guide
that talks about whole house surge protectors and completely
ignore and lie about what they actually do say about plug-in
surge protectors?





A protector (SPD) is only as effective as its earth ground.

Still waiting for an answer:

How are aircraft avionics protected against surges without
a direct earth ground?

How were you OK with Oren having a surge protection device on
his outdoor AC unit, when it has no direct, short connection to earth
ground?

How can surge protection inside all appliance, which you claim is
effective, work? The appliance has no direct short connection
to earth ground. It's operating under exactly the same limitations
that a plug-in surge protector has.





Intentionally ignoring IEEE Guide paragraphs that you do not understand does not prove you have higher intelligence. Attacking the messenger while ignoring what the Guide really says you are easily manipulated by sales myths.



LOL. It's quite obvious to everyone here who's ignoring
what the IEEE guide says.





The IEEE Guide says things you ignore to remain deceived. The only solution used in every facility that cannot have damage is earthing.

That's a lie. Are you denying that a central office for a telephone
company, for example, does not also have surge protection inside the
facility, in the actual equipment racks, on the linecards? They use
a tiered strategy, exactly as the IEEE discusses.



With low impedance (another phrase you intentionally ignore) connection to that ground via a wire or 'whole house' protector. Some facilities ban power strip protectors due to a fire risk and other problems. And because a properly earthed 'whole house' solution does over 99.5% of the protection.

Yes, low impedance. Let's pretend it's just 1 ohm. You say a big
old honking lightning bolt sends 20K amps through that whole house
surge protector into the low impedance ground connection. V = IR.
You now have 20K volts at the panel. Again, that is just using your
numbers, your assumptions, which neither I nor, nor Bud, nor the IEEE,
etc believe is true. But using your numbers, we now have 20K volts
at the circuit breaker panel inside the house and you're going
to tell us that won't present a damaging surge to the TV inside the
house? Good grief!

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 05:29:40 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:10:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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:

It protects TV1 by earthing the surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2. If you need a power strip protector on TV2, then you need one on every appliance including every clock, furnace, dishwasher, clock radio, etc. How do you put a protector on each GFCI? Why would anyone spend over $2500 on plug-in protectors when one 'whole house' protector does more for only $1 per protected appliance? Because naysayers who never did this stuff recommend the scam.

shakes head

Have you read the instructions AND warranty on a whole house surge
protector? Thought so.

They are warranted to prevent damage to items like motors and such.
Specially, items like a computer or TV is not covered.

Therefo "plug-in protectors".

On 10/1/2013 6:29 AM, westom wrote:
On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:10:33 PM UTC-4, wrote:
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:

It protects TV1 by earthing the surge 8000 volts destructively via 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"?


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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?


A protector (SPD) is only as effective as its earth ground.

It is westom's religious belief - immune from challenge. If westom could
read and think he could find out how plug-in protectors work in the IEEE
surge guide starting page 30. It is not primarily by earthing the surge.

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 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), "



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.

That's been posted a couple times. It refers to "diagrams". So is
this just a pictorial representation of some guys opinion of how these
surge protectors would hopefully work? I would have expected
something more along the lines of photos and measurements showing the
surge that was sent on the wire to the TV's and the quality of the
electric power coming out of the "protection" as well as whether the
TV actually survived the surge or not.

Nothing I've seen presented by those of you who seem to be in love
with surge protectors seems to be documentation of damage to actual
stuff inside houses without surge protection compared to the lack of
damage from the same surge to houses with surge protection.

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....

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?

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 2:52:39 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher 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), "







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.



That's been posted a couple times. It refers to "diagrams". So is

this just a pictorial representation of some guys opinion of how these

surge protectors would hopefully work?


Proving once again that despite making several posts now, you won't
even look at the diagram in the IEEE guide
that's being discussed. Both Bud and I have given the link, the
page references, many times now.

It's not a diagram of "some guy's opinion". It's a diagram in an IEEE
(Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineeers) guide on
surge protection written by a panel of experts on surge protection.

"Background and Acknowledgments
The IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee (SPDC) has been writing
Standards for lightning and surge protection for more than 30 years. The current
versions of the IEEE C62 Family of Standards represent the state of the art in
these areas.
This application guide was written to make the information developed by the
SPDC more accessible to electricians, architects, technicians, and electrical
engineers who were not protection specialists.
Many people aided in this process. François Martzloff and Don Worden provided
much of the initial inspiration. Chrys Chrysanthou, Ernie Gallo, Phil Jones, Chuck
Richardson, François Martzloff, and Steven Whisenant lent their expertise and
guidance at the beginning of this project. Duke Energy and Steven Whisenant
provided the resources for drawing the figures, and George Melchior of Panamax
created the cover art. Many other people within the IEEE SPDC actively
supported the project. We thank Yvette Ho Sang and Jennifer Longman, of the
IEEE Standards Information Network, for their creativity in finding a niche for
this work and managing it through the editorial process."



I would have expected

something more along the lines of photos and measurements showing the

surge that was sent on the wire to the TV's and the quality of the

electric power coming out of the "protection" as well as whether the

TV actually survived the surge or not.



It's a guide for electricians, homeowners, businesses, etc on
surge protection. It's based on these experts decades of experience
which includes studying the surges that typically reach appliances,
etc. A lot of the studies, tests, experiments that form the basis
of knowledge would be available in other technical papers
at IEEE and similar, if you want that level of detail.




Nothing I've seen presented by those of you who seem to be in love

with surge protectors seems to be documentation of damage to actual

stuff inside houses without surge protection compared to the lack of

damage from the same surge to houses with surge protection.

This isn't some new field. Surge protection has been of vital
importance to power companies, utilities, businesses with major
installations of electronic equipment for a very long time.
Every major installation
of electronic equipment that relies on incoming AC power, incoming
communication lines uses surge protection. A prime example
would be a telephone company central office. They have tiered
surge protection starting at where the lines enter the building.
They have additional surge protection on the line cards in the
switch, where the phone lines terminate. Do you think these folks
spend a lot of money on it because it's not needed? That they would
do that if 6 ft of ordinary wire is all that's needed to stop a surge,
as your computer club guy claimed? That the IEEE just makes up stuff
just for the hell of it?

In my own house about 15 years ago, there was a lightning storm
one day while I was away. I had most everything electronic of
importance plugged into surge protectors. One thing I did
not have plugged in to one was a Tivo. The modem on it stopped working
that day. Can I prove with 100% certainty that it was blown by
a surge? No, but it's about 99.9% certain that it was.

On 10/2/2013 7:59 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 3:00:27 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:03 PM

*10 steps to a Fascist America*


By Naomi Wolf.
*

· *Naomi Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning
to a Young Patriot will be published by Chelsea Green
in September.



From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there
are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take
to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi
Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking
them all.

Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The
leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather
systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a
sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had
been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law,
sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over
radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press,
tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists
into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along.
If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially
a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship.
That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less
bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always
effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and
sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down
is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10
steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you
are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already
been initiated today in the United States by the Bush
administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a
hard time even considering that it is possible for us to
become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations.
Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our
system of government - the task of being aware of the
constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership
to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and
professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances
that the founders put in place, even as they are being
systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much
about European history, the setting up of a department of
"homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the
word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might
have.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush
and his administration are using time-tested tactics to
close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing
to think the unthinkable - as the author and political
journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here.
And that we are further along than we realise.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American
authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at
the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to
understand the potential seriousness of the events we see
unfolding in the US.
*

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy*

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a
state of national shock. Less than six weeks later,
on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by
a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many
said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were
told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a
"global war" against a "global caliphate" intending
to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other
times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on
civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when
Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world
war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens
were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of
the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented:
all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum
was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is
defined as open-ended in time and without national
boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battle-
field. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no
defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive,
evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation
of a communist threat to the nation's security, be
based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has
faced calls for his dismissal because he noted,
among other things, that the alleged communist
arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was
swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of
the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional
law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or
the terrifying threat can be based, like the
National Socialist evocation of the "global
conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a
severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather
that the language used to convey the nature of the
threat is different in a country such as Spain -
which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks -
than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that
they face a grave security threat; what we as
American citizens believe is that we are potentially
threatened with the end of civilisation as we know
it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept
restrictions on our freedoms.
*

2. Create a gulag*

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is
to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as
Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre
at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") -
where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by
citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies
of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens
tend to support the secret prison system; it makes
them feel safer and they do not identify with the
prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders -
opposition members, labour activists, clergy and
journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-
democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany
in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups
of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for
closing down an open society or crushing a pro-
democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of
course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are
abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and
without access to the due process of the law,
America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and
his allies in Congress recently announced they
would issue no information about the secret CIA
"black site" prisons throughout the world, which
are used to incarcerate people who have been
seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming
ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly
and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts,
photographs, videos and government documents that
people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured
in the US-run prisons we are aware of and
those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee
abuses involve only scary brown people with whom
they don't generally identify. It was brave of
the conservative pundit William Safire to quote
the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had
been seized as a political prisoner: "First they
came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand
yet that the destruction of the rule of law at
Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals
that deny prisoners due process tends to come early
on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set
up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too,
set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the
judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely,
often in isolation, and tortured, without being
charged with offences, and were subjected to show
trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a
parallel system that put pressure on the regular
courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi
ideology when making decisions.
*

3. Develop a thug caste
*

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift"
want to close down an open society, they send para-
military groups of scary young men out to terrorise
citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian country-
side beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged
violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary
force is especially important in a democracy: you need
citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs
who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for
America's security contractors, with the Bush admin-
istration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally
fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth
hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for
security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq,
some of these contract operatives have been accused of
involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists
and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to
regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US adminis-
trator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are
immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after
Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security
hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security
guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy
Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having
fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural
disaster that underlay that episode - but the adminis-
tration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for
what are in effect privately contracted armies to take
on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men,
dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll
workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are
reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need
for "public order" on the next election day. Say there
are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election;
history would not rule out the presence of a private
security firm at a polling station "to restore public
order".
*

4. Set up an internal surveillance system*

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist
East Germany, in communist China - in every closed
society - secret police spy on ordinary people and
encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi
needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under
surveillance to convince a majority that they
themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau
wrote in the New York Times about a secret state
programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their
emails and follow international financial trans-
actions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that
they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as
being about "national security"; the true function
is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their
activism and dissent.
*

5. Harass citizens' groups*

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you
infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be
trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister
preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found
itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue
Service, while churches that got Republicans out to
vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law,
have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil
Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary
American anti-war, environmental and other groups
have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon
database includes more than four dozen peaceful
anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American
citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious
incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence
Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of
Defense has been gathering information about
domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political
activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential
terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen
activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined
activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism".
So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to
include the opposition.
*

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release*

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse
game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the
investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the
Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe
pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei
Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times.
In a closing or closed society there is a "list"
of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are
targeted in this way once you are on the list,
and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security
Administration confirmed that it had a list of
passengers who were targeted for security searches
or worse if they tried to fly. People who have
found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged
women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal
Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's
government - after Venezuela's president had
criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US
citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton
University; he is one of the foremost constitutional
scholars in the nation and author of the classic
Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated
former marine, and he is not even especially
politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he
was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I
was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of
people from flying because of that," asked the
airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so
marched but had, in September 2006, given a
lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the
web, highly critical of George Bush for his
many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support
the constitution? Potential terrorist. History
shows that the categories of "enemy of the people"
tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain
at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling
classified documents. He was harassed by the US
military before the charges against him were
dropped. Yee has been detained and released
several times. He is still of interest.

Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon,
was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist.
His house was secretly broken into and his computer
seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation
against him, he is still on the list.

It is a standard practice of fascist societies that
once you are on the list, you can't get off.
*

7. Target key individuals
*

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with
job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went
after the rectors of state universities who did
not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph
Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi;
so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese
communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy
students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking
a fascist shift punish academics and students with
professional loss if they do not "coordinate", in
Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants
are the sector of society most vulnerable to being
fired by a given regime, they are also a group that
fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich
Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil
Service was passed on April 7 1933.


Bush supporters in state legislatures in several
states put pressure on regents at state universities
to penalise or fire academics who have been critical
of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush
administration has derailed the career of one military
lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees,
while an administration official publicly intimidated
the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by
threatening to call for their major corporate clients
to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a
closed blog that "waterboarding is torture" was
stripped of the security clearance she needed
in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight US
attorneys for what looks like insufficient political
loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service
in April 1933, attorneys were "coordinated" too,
a step that eased the way of the increasingly
brutal laws to follow.
*

8. Control the press*

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East
Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s,
the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s,
China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships
and would-be dictators target newspapers and
journalists. They threaten and harass them in
more open societies that they are seeking to
close, and they arrest them and worse in
societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests
of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf
(no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has
been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn
over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland
Security brought a criminal complaint against
reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened
"critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer
were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana.
Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush
administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished
in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in
a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to
war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam
Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger.
His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy
- a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though,
compared with how the US is treating journalists
seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased
way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has
documented multiple accounts of the US military
in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon
unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and
camera operators from organisations ranging from
al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may
question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should
pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as
the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have
been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry
Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press
in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military
and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations
were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted
by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed
Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his
claim that terrorists had been about to attack the
nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on
forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America -
it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich
and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady
stream of lies polluting the news well. What you
already have is a White House directing a stream
of false information that is so relentless that it
is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth.
In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count
but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real
news from fake, they give up their demands for
accountability bit by bit.
*

9. Dissent equals treason*

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'.
Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates
laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of
speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor".
When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times,
ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times'
leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while
Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged
with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets
kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as
Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty
for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat
that attack represented. It is also important
to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused
the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of
treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it
is important to remind Americans that when the
1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked,
during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist
activists were arrested without warrants in
sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five
months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured
and threatened with death", according to the
historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent
was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin's Soviet Union, dissidents were "enemies
of the people". National Socialists called those
who supported Weimar democracy "November traitors".

And here is where the circle closes: most Americans
do not realise that since September of last year -
when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - the president
has the power to call any US citizen an "enemy
combatant". He has the power to define what "enemy
combatant" means. The president can also delegate
to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the
right to define "enemy combatant" any way he or she
wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we
turn out to be completely innocent of what he has
accused us of doing, he has the power to have us
seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow,
or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you
or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation,
possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged
isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis
in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why
Stalin's gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo's,
in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most
brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We US citizens will get a trial eventually - for
now. But legal rights activists at the Center for
Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration
is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get
around giving even US citizens fair trials. "Enemy
combatant" is a status offence - it is not even
something you have to have done. "We have absolutely
moved over into a preventive detention model - you
look like you could do something bad, you might do
something bad, so we're going to hold you," says a
spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder:
it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every
closing society, at a certain point there are some
high-profile arrests - usually of opposition leaders,
clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet.
After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts,
TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There
just isn't real dissent. There just isn't freedom. If
you look at history, just before those arrests is where
we are now.
*

10. Suspend the rule of law*

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007
gave the president new powers over the national
guard. This means that in a national emergency -
which the president now has enhanced powers to
declare - he can send Michigan's militia to
enforce a state of emergency that he has declared
in Oregon, over the objections of the state's
governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's
meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna
Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialised
about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon
in Washington is that laws that strike to the
heart of American democracy have been passed in
the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection,
the president may now use military troops as a
domestic police force in response to a natural
disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack
or any 'other condition'."

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse
Comitatus Act - which was meant to restrain the
federal government from using the military for
domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator
Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president
to declare federal martial law. It also violates
the very reason the founders set up our system of
government as they did: having seen citizens
bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were
terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of
militias' power over American people in the hands
of an oppressive executive or faction.
*

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable* to
the violent, total closing-down of the system that
followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's
roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic
habits are too resilient, and our military and
judiciary too independent, for any kind of
scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment
in democracy could be closed down by a process of
erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist
shift you see the profile of barbed wire against
the sky. In the early days, things look normal on
the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest
festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping
and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on,
as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere -
while someone is being tortured, children are
skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their
doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite
leisurely from the disaster."

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping
tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the
foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded.
Something has changed profoundly that weakens us
unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions,
independent judiciary and free press do their work
today in a context in which we are "at war" in a
"long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield
described as the globe, in a context that gives the
president - without US citizens realising it yet -
the power over US citizens of freedom or long
solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

That means a hollowness has been expanding under
the foundation of all these still- free-looking
institutions - and this foundation can give way
under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such
an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs".

What if, in a year and a half, there is another
attack - say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The
executive can declare a state of emergency.
History shows that any leader, of any party, will
be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the
crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional
checks and balances, we are no less endangered by
a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani -
because any executive will be tempted to enforce
his or her will through edict rather than the
arduous, uncertain process of democratic
negotiation and compromise.

What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were
charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing
effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year?
What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would
the newspapers look like the next day? Judging
from history, they would not cease publishing; but
they would suddenly be very polite.

Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to
hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us -
staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights,
who faced death threats for representing the
detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme
Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties
Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll
back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of
a new group called the American Freedom Agenda.
This small, disparate collection of people needs
everybody's help, including that of Europeans and
others internationally who are willing to put
pressure on the administration because they can
see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at
home can mean for the rest of the world.

We need to look at history and face the "what ifs".
For if we keep going down this road, the "end of
America" could come for each of us in a different
way, at a different moment; each of us might have
a different moment when we feel forced to look back
and think: that is how it was before - and this is
the way it is now.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is
the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We
still have the choice to stop going down this road;
we can stand our ground and fight for our nation,
and take up the banner the founders asked us to
carry.





The Guardian

Tuesday April 24, 2007



--
Ends

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?

Some people don't "get" logic. Might be the same people who don't trim
excess text? But, that's life.



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

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.

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

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?

When I was a kid, you might hear: "unplug the TV" during a lightning
storm. Told never to take a shower or wash dishes (metal fixture
pipes) - things like that.

I've felt tingles in my bare feet from a distant strike.