On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:13:40 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 9:25:36 AM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
http://www.sandman.com/surge.html

The type I installed the most was the type in the link below. It will take industry standard plugin fuse modules of different types. The modules can be gas tube or solid state arresters. The plug in fuses are at the bottom of the page. ^_^

http://www.discount-low-voltage.com/...ks/CR-2606QCQC

http://tinyurl.com/osl3u4r

Those protectors have what makes them effective - a connection for a 6 to 14 AWG ground wire. Then the surge is harmlessly absorbed in earth.

An AT&T forum also discusses this protection in [quote] "How can I protect my DSL/dialup equipment from surges?". It also defined what is most critically important for protection - earth ground:
Surge protection for DSL and dialup service.
Surge protection takes on many forms, but always
involves the following components: Grounding
bonding and surge protectors. ...
Grounding is required to provide the surge
protector with a path to dump the excess energy
to earth. A proper ground system is a mandatory
requirement of surge protection. Without a proper
ground, a surge protector has no way to disburse
the excess energy and will fail to protect
downstream equipment.
Bonding is required to electrically connect together
the various grounds of the services entering the
premises. Without bonding, a surge may still enter
a premise after firing over a surge protector, which
will attempt to pass the excess energy to its ground
with any additional energy that the services surge
protector ground cannot instantly handle, traveling
into and through protected equipment, damaging
that equipment in the process. ...
Now, if all the various service entrance grounds are
bonded together there are no additional paths to
ground through the premise. Even if all of the
grounds cannot instantly absorb the energy, the lack
of additional paths to ground through the premise
prevents the excess energy from seeking out any
additional grounds through that premise and the
electronic equipment within. As such, the excess
energy remains in the ground system until
dissipated, sparing the protected equipment
from damage. ...
By far, the whole house hardwired surge protectors
provide the best protection. When a whole house
primary surge protector is installed at the service
entrance, it will provide a solid first line of
defense against surges which enter from the power
company's service entrance feed. These types of
protectors can absorb/pass considerably more energy
than any other type of protector, and if one does
catastrophically fail, it will not typically be in
a living space. ...
Plug in strip protectors are, at best, a compromise.
At worst, they may cause more damage than they
prevent. While they may do an acceptable job of
handling hot to neutral surges, they do a poor job
of handling any surge that must be passed to
ground. ...
Then, to add insult to injury, some strip protectors
add Telco and/or LAN surge protection within the
same device, trying to be an all-in-one sale.
Remember bonding? When Telco or LAN protection is
added to a strip protector, if the premise ground,
which is not designed to handle surges, cannot
handle all of the energy, guess where that excess
energy seeks out the additional grounds? You got
it! The Telco and LAN connections now becomes
the path, with disastrous results to those
devices. ...


The forum here has many posts over the years that say you're
the village idiot. So, I guess that must be true too.

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:23:16 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
The forum here has many posts over the years that say you're
the village idiot. So, I guess that must be true too.

A person without civility and plenty of childish emotions will post insults.. He was previously exposed lying. He is vindictive. So he posts personal attacks with his technical lies. He even quoted a few sentences, out of context, to misrepresent what professionals have known for over 100 years.

For example, Martzloff defines an "easiest solution". trader_4 then ignores Martzloff's point. That "easiest solution" can even make appliance damage easier - especially when a 'whole house' solution is not implemented.

He misrepresents what an IEEE brochure shows in Figure 8 page 33. A surge protector (without the always required earth ground) can earth a surge destructively through any adjacent appliance. It need not even be connected to that plug-in protector. Any other nearby appliance can become a victim when one foolishly uses a plug-in (point of connection) protector without properly earthing a 'whole house' protector.

More facts that trader_4 would have learned if an adult. A surge is incoming to all equipment. Is everything damaged? Of course not. Once all but invited inside, a surge is hunting for earth ground destructively via everything. Only some appliances make a better connection. In figure 8, that is TV2. Protector is too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. A plug-in protector earths surges destructively through any nearby appliance. In figure 8, that is 8000 volts destructively via TV2. So TV2 protected TV1. Could they make it any more obvious?

Of course, that was explained to a spiteful trader_4 multiple times. He ignores well proven science to denigrate. It is what a child does.

BTW, what is often damaged? Not an incoming path (ie AC electric). Damage often is found on the outgoing path such as an HDMI port, ethernet, telephone line, USB port, coax cable port, satellite dish connection, invisible dog fence, etc. The naive will assume a surge was incoming on a phone or cable wire. A conclusion from observation without first learning well proven science. Incoming on AC mains. Damage on the outgoing connection to earth.

Never earth the victim (appliance or HVAC equipment). Earth the surge.

Protection means earthing BEFORE a surge can enter a building. Once inside, a surge will hunt for destructive paths to earth via appliances and other equipment. "Easiest solution" (an adjacent protector) does not even claim to protect from surges that destructively hunt for earth. Why is this tens of times more expensive solution recommended?

Plug-in protectors only protect from near zero surges that are small overvoltages between two wires. It does not avert and may make easier damage by destructive surges - that hunt for earth ground.

As predicted and as he does every time - trader_4 ignores another problem with undersized plug-in (point of connection) protectors: 'fire'. What happens when a near zero protector foolishly tried to block or absorb a destructive surge - hundreds of thousands of joules? In rare cases, house fires occur. UL1449 was created because fires happened in undersized plug-in protectors. UL1449 has been upgraded three times - and still fires happen. Just another reason why informed homeowners earth a 'whole house' protector - to avert fires created by plug-in (point of connection) protectors.

trader_4 even ignores a recent APC recall of millions of their plug-in protectors due to that fire problem. Informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector because his 'easiest solution' is also a fire threat.

trader_4 always ignores the AT&T report that says how plug-in protectors can even make damage easier. It says:
Grounding is required to provide the surge
protector with a path to dump the excess energy
to earth. A proper ground system is a mandatory
requirement of surge protection. Without a proper
ground, a surge protector has no way to disburse
the excess energy and will fail to protect
downstream equipment.

Not only does he intentionally misrepresent IEEE's Figure 8 on page 33 (Adobe page 42). He also ignores what surge 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.

Point 1 - a 'whole house' protector protects HVAC equipment.
Point 2 - 'whole house' protector required to protect plug-in protectors.
Point 3 - that protector needed to protect all household appliances.

Page 22 (Adobe page 31)
2.3.1 Grounding
An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical for the
successful operation of an SPD. ... Therefore, an evaluation
of the service entrance grounding system at the time of the
SPD installation is very important.

IEEE brochures says earthing a 'whole house' protector is essential, says why, and even says how. The engineer said that repeatedly. An acidic trader_4 denies it.

2.3.2 Lead Length
To achieve optimum overvoltage protection, the connecting
leads between the SPDs and the panel or protected
equipment should be as short as possible and without
sharp 90-degree bends. ... For fast-rising lightning
pulses, the inductance of these leads produces large
voltage drops.

Only an engineer who actually did this stuff constantly refers to that always required low impedance (ie less than 10 foot) connection to single point earth ground.

trader_4 intentionally chooses to ignore well proven science. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Protection is always about how and where hundreds of thousands of joules are harmlessly absorbed outside in earth. Every layer of protection (so called 'tier') is only defined by that earth ground. (Ignoring earth ground can create more teats.) Plug-in protector does not have and will not even discuss earth ground. Anyone can read near zero joules in plug-in protector specifications that explains unacceptable catastrophic failures and even fire.

A bitter adult acting like a child denies this repeatedly. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector is essential for protecting HVAC equipment.

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 10:28:55 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:


For example, Martzloff defines an "easiest solution". trader_4 then ignores Martzloff's point. That "easiest solution" can even make appliance damage easier - especially when a 'whole house' solution is not implemented.


http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

"Plug-in Surge Protectors

This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."


Now you show us where he says in that guide what you claim he says:

"That "easiest solution" can even make appliance damage easier - especially when a 'whole house' solution is not implemented"


Stop lying.



He misrepresents what an IEEE brochure shows in Figure 8 page 33. A surge protector (without the always required earth ground) can earth a surge destructively through any adjacent appliance. It need not even be connected to that plug-in protector. Any other nearby appliance can become a victim when one foolishly uses a plug-in (point of connection) protector without properly earthing a 'whole house' protector.

Hard to misrepresent what is there in black and white. It shows TV1
being protected from a surge by a plug-in protector. It shows TV2
with no protector, being damaged. It concludes with:

"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

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

Page 33, fig 8.

Why is it that I have pages to cite, with the actual sentences quoted,
where everyone can read it in context, but you only have what you claim
it says?



More facts that trader_4 would have learned if an adult. A surge is incoming to all equipment.

Pure fantasy. A surge coming in on a cable line or telephone line
isn't going to the microwave oven.


Is everything damaged? Of course not. Once all but invited inside, a surge is hunting for earth ground destructively via everything. Only some appliances make a better connection. In figure 8, that is TV2.


And the IEEE document clearly states:

"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

Of course the village idiot completely ignores this elephant in the
room and instead lies.






Plug-in protectors only protect from near zero surges that are small overvoltages between two wires. It does not avert and may make easier damage by destructive surges - that hunt for earth ground.


Tell that to Martzloff, NIST and the IEEE:

"Plug-in Surge Protectors

This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."





As predicted and as he does every time - trader_4 ignores another problem with undersized plug-in (point of connection) protectors: 'fire'.

There you go again. I guess that Martzloff, who you cite (out of context
or worse) is totally irresponsible then for recommending them.



What happens when a near zero protector foolishly tried to block or absorb a destructive surge - hundreds of thousands of joules?

Pure fantasy, it's be explained to you many times over the years that
hundreds of thousands of joules can't make it to an appliance. Clue:
Look up flashover.


In rare cases, house fires occur. UL1449 was created because fires happened in undersized plug-in protectors. UL1449 has been upgraded three times - and still fires happen. Just another reason why informed homeowners earth a 'whole house' protector - to avert fires created by plug-in (point of connection) protectors.

All kinds of standards exist on all kinds of systems, appliances, etc
that go into a house. Fires still happen. Wow, who would ever think
that could be?




trader_4 even ignores a recent APC recall of millions of their plug-in protectors due to that fire problem.

I asked you for the link to this "recent" recall and of course, like
everything else, you can't provide it. GM had a recent recall, does
that mean that all cars made by all manufacturers are unsafe? Go figure.




Informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector because his 'easiest solution' is also a fire threat.

trader_4 always ignores the AT&T report that says how plug-in protectors can even make damage easier.

Now it's an AT&T "report". You said before it was from an AT&T "forum".
Curious, like most of what you claim, there is no link so we can all
read it. Where the link to that recent APC recall?





Not only does he intentionally misrepresent IEEE's Figure 8 on page 33 (Adobe page 42).

No misrepresentation, just the facts of what they actually say, right the

"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

Now, you show us where the IEEE guide says what you're lying about, which
is that the surge protector at TV1
caused the damage at TV2. Show us where they say they should not be used.
Show us where they say they are a fire hazard.

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Previously, trader_4 denied that surges incoming to a home can be 20,000 amps. How ironic. His latest citation contradicts him. It says,
There is also a wide range in the severity of the
strike itself, with the very severe or very mild
being rare, the majority being in mid-range (a
current of about 20,000 amperes for a short time)

How can this be? trader_4, with a mocking attitude, said surges incoming to a home are not that severe. His citation provides numbers that agree with the engineer - contradict the naysayer!

His citation says:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge
protector will work by diverting the surges to ground. The
best surge protector in the world can be useless if
grounding is not done properly.

Who keeps saying that? A denigrator whose citation contradicts his beliefs? Or an engineer who did this stuff? An engineer even provides numbers for grounding properly: low impedance (ie less than 10 feet) connection and single point earth ground.
  
 His citation also says:
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest"
it. What these protective devices do is neither suppress
nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where
it can do no harm.

Which protectors have that low impedance connection to earth? 'Whole house'. Which do not? Plug-in (point of connection) protectors. Martzloff warned of damage "when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." Even trader_4's latest attempt at honesty is contradicted by his latest citation.

We can do this forever. Since the number of technically responsible citations constantly contradict what trader_4 believes.

Another Martzloff paper in 1991 describes plug-in protector on a branch circuit and why damage can happen:
CONCLUSION ...
2. While the main function of the device, limiting
overvoltages between line and neutral, is accomplished,
the return path for the surge current will produce
difference of potential among the conductive parts at
the end of the branch circuit, differences that can be
damaging to certain components of connected equipment.
3. A more effective protection scheme is to divert the
surges at the service entrance, rather than allow them
to flow in the branch circuits.

Point 2 describes damage to any nearby appliance by a plug-in protector and demonstrated in an IEEE brochure Figure 8 Page 33. Point 3 describes how to avert damage to all nearby appliances by simply properly earthing one 'whole house' protector.

An easy solution does not mean effective protection as trader_4 wishes. It only means it is easy and can easily make other damage possible - as Martzloff notes in so many IEEE papers.

Taking sentences out of context does not make one educated. He never did this stuff. Insulting and denying are what he does. Even his own citations repeatedly contradict him. Martzloff is clear about this. A plug-in protector, not coordinated with the always required and properly earth 'whole house' solution, can even make appliance damage easier. His latest citations says why.
The best surge protector in the world can be useless
if grounding is not done properly.

Protectors recommended by trader_4 have no low impedance grounding. But they sure are profitable.

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 11:45:16 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

So how many $thousands will you spend? TV2 needs one. Every radio needs one. How do you install one on each GFCI? Dishwasher needs one. Stove needs one. Every recharging appliance needs one. Each dimmer switch needs one.. How do you put one on every smoke detector? Every kid must be carefully trained on how to connect his Xbox to the TV. Otherwise Xbox can be damaged.. Every LED bulb needs one. Are you really that dense?

One earths a 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Then has properly sized protectors that do not fail - or cause fires.

So you finally decided to admit to ignorance - did not know about protector fire and that recent recall of so many APC protectors:
"Recall of 15 million surge protectors due to fire hazard"
https://forums.thefirepanel.com/view...hp?f=26&t=6334
The firm has received 700 reports of the surge protectors
overheating and melting and 55 claims of property damage
from smoke and fire,

"House fire caused by faulty surge protector not on recall list, Kingwood chief says" :
http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-d..._by_fault.html
A pre-dawn fire at a home here yesterday was caused by a
surge protector/power strip that overheated and caught
fire, the township fire company chief reported today.

picarho in "semi-disaster. Ever happened to you??" in reefcentral.com:
So while I was at work my house went up into smoke...
no fire thank Jesus! My surge protector had 6 things
plugged into it... Return pump, T5's, PowerHead, Heater,
Skimmer and a cheap "reptile" light I use to see my
sump when im topping off/cleaning. something happened
(not sure what) but 5 of the 6 were melted into the
? surge protector. they wont even come out of it they
are melted in so bad.... None of my breakers in the
house tripped nor did the surge turn off....

Norma in 2008 in alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage":
Today, the cable company came to replace a wire. Well
the cable man pulled a wire and somehow yanked loose
their "ground" wire. The granddaughter on the computer
yelled and ran because sparks and smoke were coming
from the power surge strip.

From the Gaston County Fire Marshal:
Recent fires involving multiple outlet devices toted as
surge suppressors raised attention at the Gaston County
Fire Marshal's office primarily when one such fire
occurred in a fire station. Investigation of a fire
that started behind a desk in an office revealed the
ignition source was a surge suppressor.
...
Within that firehouse, three separate surge suppressors
were recovered and examined. Each had failed, the one
caught on fire, another suppressor ceased working,
while the third continued working but later was found
to have failed internally. These findings, coupled
with suspicion of suppressor involvement in other fires,
prompted in-depth examination of possible reasons.
...
When fire investigators examine fire scenes where surge
suppressors are involved in the ignition few know what
patterns indicate failed MOV's. If not properly
collected, suppressor parts cannot be carefully examined
to determine involvement, thus fire cause is improperly
categorized in reporting systems.

trader_4's in depth knowledge and experience did not understand what sometimes happens when a hundreds or thousand joule protector futilely tries to block or absorb a surge that is tens or hundreds of thousands of joules. Just another reason why informed consumers earth a 'whole house' protector.

On 10/22/2015 11:47 PM, westom wrote:
Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks.

IIRC, troll_4 is the guy that claimed most folks in US had 120/240v 2-phase power. Claimed he could prove it with his dual-trace scope.
Of course, anyone that was paying attention in Electricity 101 knows troll_4 had a pair of his scope leads hooked up backwards.

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 11:47:05 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Previously, trader_4 denied that surges incoming to a home can be 20,000 amps. How ironic. His latest citation contradicts him. It says,
There is also a wide range in the severity of the
strike itself, with the very severe or very mild
being rare, the majority being in mid-range (a
current of about 20,000 amperes for a short time)


Anything else you want to misrepresent or lie about? Here is the
above, that you clearly misrepresent, in context:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

How far, how severe?
The answers to these two questions are linked. A nearby
lightning strike has more severe consequences than an equal
strike occurring farther away. There is also a wide range in
the severity of the strike itself, with the very severe or
very mild being rare, the majority being in mid-range (a
current of about 20,000 amperes for a short time)."


Clearly the NIST guide is talking about the *full lightning
strike* itself, not what shows up inside the house. I said
that it's unlikely that a 20KA surge is going to wind up at
a surge protector inside the house.

And what I said is 100% consistent with the IEEE document,
written by 4 experts on surge protection:

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


"Some documents (IEEE Std C62.41.2„¢)7 suggest
10 kA (8/20 μs) as the largest surge that can reasonably be expected at a service
entrance, and this value has been used as the basis for some standards. UL 1449,
for example, requires only resistance to multiple 3000 Amp (8/20 μs) surges for
panel protectors, which could be used at the service entrance."

Note the 10KA.
Since you disagree, take it up with them, but at least stop misrepresenting
what they say and taking select words out of context.




How can this be? trader_4, with a mocking attitude, said surges incoming to a home are not that severe. His citation provides numbers that agree with the engineer - contradict the naysayer!


Which protectors have that low impedance connection to earth? 'Whole house'. Which do not? Plug-in (point of connection) protectors. Martzloff warned of damage "when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." Even trader_4's latest attempt at honesty is contradicted by his latest citation.


What Martzloff actually says, in his own words, in context, with a link
so anyone can verify it:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

"Plug-in Surge Protectors

This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."

Note that he endorses using them and does not say way you claim
ie that they should not be used, are dangerous, or cause fires.





Another Martzloff paper in 1991 describes plug-in protector on a branch circuit and why damage can happen:
CONCLUSION ...
2. While the main function of the device, limiting
overvoltages between line and neutral, is accomplished,
the return path for the surge current will produce
difference of potential among the conductive parts at
the end of the branch circuit, differences that can be
damaging to certain components of connected equipment.
3. A more effective protection scheme is to divert the
surges at the service entrance, rather than allow them
to flow in the branch circuits.

Point 2 describes damage to any nearby appliance by a plug-in protector and demonstrated in an IEEE brochure Figure 8 Page 33. Point 3 describes how to avert damage to all nearby appliances by simply properly earthing one 'whole house' protector.


The lie repeated. What Fig 8 actually shows is the use of a plug-in
surge protector, which the IEEE, like NIST endorses using. It shows TV1
being protected from a surge by a plug-in protector. It shows TV2
with no protector, being damaged. It concludes with:

"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

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

Page 33, fig 8.

Why is it that I have pages to cite, with the actual sentences quoted,
where everyone can read it in context, but you only have what you claim
something says?



An easy solution does not mean effective protection as trader_4 wishes. It only means it is easy and can easily make other damage possible - as Martzloff notes in so many IEEE papers.

Taking sentences out of context does not make one educated.

Boy that takes the cake from the guy that is doing EXACTLY THAT.
Even worse, you're outright lying about what the IEEE document says.
It's would be mightly strange for the IEEE experts to be recommending
to use a second plug-in surge protector if in fact they are causing
damage, instead of preventing it.

"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:27:57 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 11:45:16 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

So how many $thousands will you spend? TV2 needs one. Every radio needs one. How do you install one on each GFCI? Dishwasher needs one. Stove needs one. Every recharging appliance needs one. Each dimmer switch needs one. How do you put one on every smoke detector? Every kid must be carefully trained on how to connect his Xbox to the TV. Otherwise Xbox can be damaged. Every LED bulb needs one. Are you really that dense?

One earths a 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance.. Then has properly sized protectors that do not fail - or cause fires.


From the IEEE:


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

"A few panel protectors have circuitry that allows them to combine a low surge
limiting voltage with the capability to withstand 240 VAC phase-neutral voltage.
However, they do not
stop the excess voltage from passing to the connected equipment downstream.
Plug-in (point-of-use, or supplementary protectors) are the main defense against
sustained AC overvoltage events. 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."

Section 5 is an entire chapter on how to use plug-ins, but obviously
you just continue to ignore the whole thing, except for that one
diagram you have a fetish for selectively taking out of context and
misrepresenting.


So you finally decided to admit to ignorance - did not know about protector fire and that recent recall of so many APC protectors:
"Recall of 15 million surge protectors due to fire hazard"
https://forums.thefirepanel.com/view...hp?f=26&t=6334
The firm has received 700 reports of the surge protectors
overheating and melting and 55 claims of property damage
from smoke and fire,


Nice, you finally provided a link. So, APC has had a recall of surge
protectors that were manufactured back in 2003. But you
didn't answer the related question. GM has recalled some cars recently.
It happens. Does that mean that all cars manufactured by all manufacturers worldwide
have dangerous defects too? If they are all inherently dangerous and cause
fires, why hasn't CPSC ordered them all recalled? Why does UL continue
to test and certify them to their standards? Many plug-in surge
protectors are used similar to an extension cord. How many fires are
caused by extension cords?

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:26:20 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
"A few panel protectors have circuitry that allows them to combine a low
surge limiting voltage with the capability to withstand 240 VAC
phase-neutral voltage. However, they do not stop the excess voltage
from passing to the connected equipment downstream. Plug-in
(point-of-use, or supplementary protectors) are the main defense
against sustained AC overvoltage events. 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."

Again trader_4 demonstrates no basic electrical knowledge. His quote describes a completely different transient that typically does not damage appliances. Basic electrical knowledge about longitudinal and transverse mode currents is so obviously unknown. Destructive currents seek earth ground. Those surges do damage. Those currents need not hunt for earth destructively via appliances IF properly earthed before entering.

trader_4 describes protection from a completely different transient already made irrelevant by how appliances are designed. Plug-in (point of use) protectors are only supplementary protection. Only effective if used in conjunction with the 'whole house' solution. Used alone (as trader_4 recommends) is ineffective for so many reasons.

trader_4 claims plug-in protectors are complete protection. He knows because advertising and hearsay says so. Near zero joule devices can be overwhelmed (even create fire) if used without the 'whole house' protection. A problem seen in 1986, 2003, and today.

Somehow trader_4 is an expert because he quotes out of context. He is obviously technically naive which explains his mockery and many personal attacks. Also explains why his every claim never includes numbers. For example, at what point does he say how his 'magic box' solution absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules? He ignores glaring inconsistencies as he also ignores what Martzloff said repeatedly. A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even make equipment damage easier.

He cannot cite numbers. His knowledge comes from subjective speculation. He does not even understand what his own quotes say. He does not even know how a 'whole house' protector works. He does not know the different between longitudinal and transverse mode currents. Somehow that magic box that can only absorb hundreds of joules will magically absorb a surge that is hundreds of thousands of joules. He knows because he has no electrical knowledge and routinely ignores numbers.

Essential for protecting any appliances or HVAC equipment is a properly earthed 'whole house'. Even a plug-in (point of use) protector (some found inside HVAC equipment) needs that protection. Since one protector can even compromise protection inside any nearby appliance - Figure 8 page 33. Plug-in protectors can even earth a surge destructively via any nearby appliance. Best protection that costs tens or 100 times less money is properly earthed 'whole house' protection.

The IEEE does not just define effective 'whole house' protection in that brochure. IEEE Red Book says:
lightning protection is achieve by the process of
interception of lightning produced surges, diverting
them to ground, and by altering their associated
wave shapes.

What is that? Clearly not a plug-in protector. Obviously 'whole house' protection.

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

What is that solution? Clearly not a plug-in protector. Obviously 'whole house' protection.

From a Martzloff 1993 paper:
The problem of threatening voltage differences created
along the return path of a surge diverted at the end of
a branch circuit can also be reduced by other means.
High current surges on the power system ... are best
diverted at the service entrance of the premises.

Threatening voltage on a branch circuit is created by a plug-in protector as described by Martzloff in this and other papers. And by Figure 8 page 33. But as he says, that damage to adjacent appliances is best reduced by the 'whole house' solution.

Again numbers from IEEE standards. A 'whole house' protector does "99.5% to 99.9% protection". Then use plug-in protectors to provide maybe another 0.2% protection. The tens or 100 times less expensive 'whole house' solution is for surges that typically do damage - hundreds of thousand of joules.. Plug-in protectors are for the residual currents that might exist - that are typically made irrelevant by protection already inside all equipment.

Summarized is why plug-in protectors cause fires. What happens when hundreds of joules try to absorb destructive surges - hundreds of thousands of joules. The Fire Marshal (that trader_4 ignores) describes what happens. Fire is another reason why informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector. Despite trader_4's denials, even his own citation says a typically destructive surge can be 20,000 amps. So a mininal 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. Despite trader_4's denials, any protector that fails did not provide effective protection.

How many things did he get wrong? Too many to count. Informed homeowners do what has been proven protection for over 100 years - earth a 'whole house' protector.

What in that brochure does he forget? Brochure says the 'whole house' protector is needed to protect plug-in protectors.
... three requirements of the service entrance SPD:
2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream SPDs.

Because downstream (near zero joule) plug-in protector must be protected so as to even not cause house fires.

On 10/23/2015 11:12 AM, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:26:20 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
"A few panel protectors have circuitry that allows them to combine a low
surge limiting voltage with the capability to withstand 240 VAC
phase-neutral voltage. However, they do not stop the excess voltage
from passing to the connected equipment downstream. Plug-in
(point-of-use, or supplementary protectors) are the main defense
against sustained AC overvoltage events. 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."

Again trader_4 demonstrates no basic electrical knowledge. His quote describes a completely different transient that typically does not damage appliances. Basic electrical knowledge about longitudinal and transverse mode currents is so obviously unknown. Destructive currents seek earth ground. Those surges do damage. Those currents need not hunt for earth destructively via appliances IF properly earthed before entering.

trader_4 describes protection from a completely different transient already made irrelevant by how appliances are designed. Plug-in (point of use) protectors are only supplementary protection. Only effective if used in conjunction with the 'whole house' solution. Used alone (as trader_4 recommends) is ineffective for so many reasons.

trader_4 claims plug-in protectors are complete protection. He knows because advertising and hearsay says so. Near zero joule devices can be overwhelmed (even create fire) if used without the 'whole house' protection. A problem seen in 1986, 2003, and today.

Somehow trader_4 is an expert because he quotes out of context. He is obviously technically naive which explains his mockery and many personal attacks. Also explains why his every claim never includes numbers. For example, at what point does he say how his 'magic box' solution absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules? He ignores glaring inconsistencies as he also ignores what Martzloff said repeatedly. A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even make equipment damage easier.

He cannot cite numbers. His knowledge comes from subjective speculation. He does not even understand what his own quotes say. He does not even know how a 'whole house' protector works. He does not know the different between longitudinal and transverse mode currents. Somehow that magic box that can only absorb hundreds of joules will magically absorb a surge that is hundreds of thousands of joules. He knows because he has no electrical knowledge and routinely ignores numbers.

Essential for protecting any appliances or HVAC equipment is a properly earthed 'whole house'. Even a plug-in (point of use) protector (some found inside HVAC equipment) needs that protection. Since one protector can even compromise protection inside any nearby appliance - Figure 8 page 33. Plug-in protectors can even earth a surge destructively via any nearby appliance. Best protection that costs tens or 100 times less money is properly earthed 'whole house' protection.

The IEEE does not just define effective 'whole house' protection in that brochure. IEEE Red Book says:
lightning protection is achieve by the process of
interception of lightning produced surges, diverting
them to ground, and by altering their associated
wave shapes.

What is that? Clearly not a plug-in protector. Obviously 'whole house' protection.

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

What is that solution? Clearly not a plug-in protector. Obviously 'whole house' protection.

From a Martzloff 1993 paper:
The problem of threatening voltage differences created
along the return path of a surge diverted at the end of
a branch circuit can also be reduced by other means.
High current surges on the power system ... are best
diverted at the service entrance of the premises.

Threatening voltage on a branch circuit is created by a plug-in protector as described by Martzloff in this and other papers. And by Figure 8 page 33. But as he says, that damage to adjacent appliances is best reduced by the 'whole house' solution.

Again numbers from IEEE standards. A 'whole house' protector does "99.5% to 99.9% protection". Then use plug-in protectors to provide maybe another 0.2% protection. The tens or 100 times less expensive 'whole house' solution is for surges that typically do damage - hundreds of thousand of joules. Plug-in protectors are for the residual currents that might exist - that are typically made irrelevant by protection already inside all equipment.

Summarized is why plug-in protectors cause fires. What happens when hundreds of joules try to absorb destructive surges - hundreds of thousands of joules. The Fire Marshal (that trader_4 ignores) describes what happens. Fire is another reason why informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector. Despite trader_4's denials, even his own citation says a typically destructive surge can be 20,000 amps. So a mininal 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. Despite trader_4's denials, any protector that fails did not provide effective protection.

How many things did he get wrong? Too many to count. Informed homeowners do what has been proven protection for over 100 years - earth a 'whole house' protector.

What in that brochure does he forget? Brochure says the 'whole house' protector is needed to protect plug-in protectors.
... three requirements of the service entrance SPD:
2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream SPDs.

Because downstream (near zero joule) plug-in protector must be protected so as to even not cause house fires.


You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

--
Maggie

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.

Previously, trader_4 denied that surges incoming to a home can be 20,000 amps. How ironic. His latest citation contradicts him. It says,
There is also a wide range in the severity of the
strike itself, with the very severe or very mild
being rare, the majority being in mid-range (a
current of about 20,000 amperes for a short time)

How can this be? trader_4, with a mocking attitude, said surges incoming to a home are not that severe. His citation provides numbers that agree with the engineer - contradict the naysayer!

His citation says:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge
protector will work by diverting the surges to ground. The
best surge protector in the world can be useless if
grounding is not done properly.

Who keeps saying that? A denigrator whose citation contradicts his beliefs? Or an engineer who did this stuff? An engineer even provides numbers for grounding properly: low impedance (ie less than 10 feet) connection and single point earth ground.
  
 His citation also says:
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest"
it. What these protective devices do is neither suppress
nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where
it can do no harm.

Which protectors have that low impedance connection to earth? 'Whole house'. Which do not? Plug-in (point of connection) protectors. Martzloff warned of damage "when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." Even trader_4's latest attempt at honesty is contradicted by his latest citation.

We can do this forever. Since the number of technically responsible citations constantly contradict what trader_4 believes.

Another Martzloff paper in 1991 describes plug-in protector on a branch circuit and why damage can happen:
CONCLUSION ...
2. While the main function of the device, limiting
overvoltages between line and neutral, is accomplished,
the return path for the surge current will produce
difference of potential among the conductive parts at
the end of the branch circuit, differences that can be
damaging to certain components of connected equipment.
3. A more effective protection scheme is to divert the
surges at the service entrance, rather than allow them
to flow in the branch circuits.

Point 2 describes damage to any nearby appliance by a plug-in protector and demonstrated in an IEEE brochure Figure 8 Page 33. Point 3 describes how to avert damage to all nearby appliances by simply properly earthing one 'whole house' protector.

An easy solution does not mean effective protection as trader_4 wishes. It only means it is easy and can easily make other damage possible - as Martzloff notes in so many IEEE papers.

Taking sentences out of context does not make one educated. He never did this stuff. Insulting and denying are what he does. Even his own citations repeatedly contradict him. Martzloff is clear about this. A plug-in protector, not coordinated with the always required and properly earth 'whole house' solution, can even make appliance damage easier. His latest citations says why.
The best surge protector in the world can be useless
if grounding is not done properly.

Protectors recommended by trader_4 have no low impedance grounding. But they sure are profitable.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:12:32 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 9:26:20 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
"A few panel protectors have circuitry that allows them to combine a low
surge limiting voltage with the capability to withstand 240 VAC
phase-neutral voltage. However, they do not stop the excess voltage
from passing to the connected equipment downstream. Plug-in
(point-of-use, or supplementary protectors) are the main defense
against sustained AC overvoltage events. 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."

Again trader_4 demonstrates no basic electrical knowledge.

Well, if that's true, then take it up with IEEE or NIST, it's
their words not mine.



trader_4 describes protection from a completely different transient already made irrelevant by how appliances are designed.
Plug-in (point of use) protectors are only supplementary protection.

Really ? Still waiting for the explanation of how the small MOVs inside
an appliance can make surges "irrelevant", with no earth ground, but
a plug-in is not only not effective, but actually causes damage.



Only effective if used in conjunction with the 'whole house' solution. Used alone (as trader_4 recommends) is ineffective for so many reasons.


That isn't what Martzloff who you cite as an authority says.
In his own words, in context, with a link so anyone can verify it:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf


"Plug-in Surge Protectors

This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."








trader_4 claims plug-in protectors are complete protection.

I never said any such thing.


Somehow trader_4 is an expert because he quotes out of context.

Actually, I've provided many links so that anyone interested can
look at and read what is really there. It fully supports everything
I've said. YOU are the one taking things out of context.


He is obviously technically naive which explains his mockery and many personal attacks. Also explains why his every claim never includes numbers. For example, at what point does he say how his 'magic box' solution absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules? He ignores glaring inconsistencies as he also ignores what Martzloff said repeatedly. A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even make equipment damage easier.

What Martzloff actually says, in his own words, in context, with a link
so anyone can verify it:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf


"Plug-in Surge Protectors

This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."




He cannot cite numbers.

Wrong, I've cited the IEEE and NIST.


His knowledge comes from subjective speculation. He does not even understand what his own quotes say. He does not even know how a 'whole house' protector works. He does not know the different between longitudinal and transverse mode currents. Somehow that magic box that can only absorb hundreds of joules will magically absorb a surge that is hundreds of thousands of joules. He knows because he has no electrical knowledge and routinely ignores numbers.

Essential for protecting any appliances or HVAC equipment is a properly earthed 'whole house'. Even a plug-in (point of use) protector (some found inside HVAC equipment) needs that protection.

That's a new one. HVAC equipment now has plug-in surge protectors
inside? Good grief!


Since one protector can even compromise protection inside any nearby appliance - Figure 8 page 33.

Fig 8 page 33 clearly ends with that to protect the second damaged TV,
another multiport plug-in surge protector is required.


Plug-in protectors can even earth a surge destructively via any nearby appliance. Best protection that costs tens or 100 times less money is properly earthed 'whole house' protection.

The IEEE does not just define effective 'whole house' protection in that brochure. IEEE Red Book says:
lightning protection is achieve by the process of
interception of lightning produced surges, diverting
them to ground, and by altering their associated
wave shapes.

What is that? Clearly not a plug-in protector.

Says who? You?

Read what NIST, IEEE say.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:55:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.


Clare, it figures that you'd return and take the wrong side of the debate.
Not surprising, given that you're wrong on electrical issues about 80%
of the time. Your forte is making up code requirements that don't exist.
But in this case, since I *supported* you, I would hope that you would have
some better sense. YOU had started this debate with the BS WTom posted.
I came in later supporting what you posted. And now, you're dumb enough
to again attack me? Good grief.
And almost everyone here knows WTom and his BS history going back years.

And finally, if you can't follow the posts, don't want to participate, how
hard is it to just skip the thread? Here's a thought. Go **** yourself.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:24:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

If westom is an electrician I would not hire him.

An SPD saved my 50" Plasma TV. I lost an older one without an SPD.
The server at work was saved from a brownout surge on an APC battery
unit. I suspect nearby lightning caused a main board damage on my
refrigerator.

Maybe he can explain _why_ planes have no earth ground. My guess he
thinks every appliance needs a barn lightning rod with an electrode.
Or planes drag a chain behind it to earth ground, like fuel trucks.

I'm not an electrician

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:09:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:55:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.


Clare, it figures that you'd return and take the wrong side of the debate.
Not surprising, given that you're wrong on electrical issues about 80%
of the time. Your forte is making up code requirements that don't exist.
But in this case, since I *supported* you, I would hope that you would have
some better sense. YOU had started this debate with the BS WTom posted.
I came in later supporting what you posted. And now, you're dumb enough
to again attack me? Good grief.
And almost everyone here knows WTom and his BS history going back years.

And finally, if you can't follow the posts, don't want to participate, how
hard is it to just skip the thread? Here's a thought. Go **** yourself.

On 10/23/2015 12:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:24:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

If westom is an electrician I would not hire him.

ok Just trying to make sense of the discussion.

An SPD saved my 50" Plasma TV. I lost an older one without an SPD.
The server at work was saved from a brownout surge on an APC battery
unit. I suspect nearby lightning caused a main board damage on my
refrigerator.

Maybe he can explain _why_ planes have no earth ground. My guess he
thinks every appliance needs a barn lightning rod with an electrode.
Or planes drag a chain behind it to earth ground, like fuel trucks.

Long time ago when I was still living my parents, lightning hit the big
oak tree in our front yard. We felt the electricity in the air about a
split second before it hit, but nothing in the house was damaged. Not
sure why, though, because we didn't use surge protectors for anything
back then.

Fast forward 20 years, I'm living in my own house and the large sycamore
tree across the street was hit with lightning. It damaged 2 tv's and a
pc. The tv's and pc all had surge protectors, but were damaged, anyway.

I'm not an electrician


Me either! I run for cover when it gets stormy because of the lightning
possibility.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:58:40 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:09:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:55:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.


Clare, it figures that you'd return and take the wrong side of the debate.

Wrong side? I didn't take any side on this debate in the posting you
replied to. I just agreed with your last sentance - "Again trader4 has
thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps
referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and
that contradict his beliefs."
Not surprising, given that you're wrong on electrical issues about 80%
of the time. Your forte is making up code requirements that don't exist.


No, I just see things from the Canadian side of the border, where our
code is much more stringent than the US code when it comes to anything
electrical - and most other "safety" codes as well.
But in this case, since I *supported* you, I would hope that you would have
some better sense. YOU had started this debate with the BS WTom posted.
I came in later supporting what you posted. And now, you're dumb enough
to again attack me? Good grief.

I attacked you? How?
I said Plonk Trader. Not you.
And almost everyone here knows WTom and his BS history going back years.

And finally, if you can't follow the posts, don't want to participate, how
hard is it to just skip the thread? Here's a thought. Go **** yourself.

Oren - I thought a lot better of you than that. Shame on yourself
And you seem to have trouble following the posts too if you think my
last post was attacking you. I think your skin is getting a bit thin.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:58:20 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:58:40 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:09:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:55:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.


Clare, it figures that you'd return and take the wrong side of the debate.

Wrong side? I didn't take any side on this debate in the posting you
replied to. I just agreed with your last sentance - "Again trader4 has
thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps
referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and
that contradict his beliefs."
Not surprising, given that you're wrong on electrical issues about 80%
of the time. Your forte is making up code requirements that don't exist.


No, I just see things from the Canadian side of the border, where our
code is much more stringent than the US code when it comes to anything
electrical - and most other "safety" codes as well.
But in this case, since I *supported* you, I would hope that you would have
some better sense. YOU had started this debate with the BS WTom posted.
I came in later supporting what you posted. And now, you're dumb enough
to again attack me? Good grief.

I attacked you? How?
I said Plonk Trader. Not you.
And almost everyone here knows WTom and his BS history going back years.

And finally, if you can't follow the posts, don't want to participate, how
hard is it to just skip the thread? Here's a thought. Go **** yourself.

Oren - I thought a lot better of you than that. Shame on yourself
And you seem to have trouble following the posts too if you think my
last post was attacking you. I think your skin is getting a bit thin.

Don't be silly. I just hit reply and never said a word about you,
Clarence. The reply was so that you would see what Trader said to
you. Oh well. Shame on me. I'm bad

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:22:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/23/2015 12:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:24:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

If westom is an electrician I would not hire him.

ok Just trying to make sense of the discussion.

An SPD saved my 50" Plasma TV. I lost an older one without an SPD.
The server at work was saved from a brownout surge on an APC battery
unit. I suspect nearby lightning caused a main board damage on my
refrigerator.

Maybe he can explain _why_ planes have no earth ground. My guess he
thinks every appliance needs a barn lightning rod with an electrode.
Or planes drag a chain behind it to earth ground, like fuel trucks.

Long time ago when I was still living my parents, lightning hit the big
oak tree in our front yard. We felt the electricity in the air about a
split second before it hit, but nothing in the house was damaged. Not
sure why, though, because we didn't use surge protectors for anything
back then.

The Oak tree took the direct hit and not much got into your electrical
supply. You likely didn't have much if any "solid state" equipment
back then either. Most "solid state" equipment used in homes today
runs on between 3.5 and 18 volts, with the switch-mode power supply -
and occaisionally just an old-school transformer/rectifier circuit,
connecting it to mains power.
If a surge "punches through" the isolation of the power supply in any
way and the voltage getting to those solid state devices (transistors,
CMOS logic chips, microprocessors etc) excedes their maximum operating
voltage, the device is "toast" and the equipment it is part of is
damaged..
Better equipment has more and more effective surge and overvoltage
protection, and quite often internal protection fuses are the only
casualty where on a cheaper piece of equipment the damage may be so
extensive it is not worth attempting to repair it.

Older electronic equipment (using tubes, etc) ran on higher voltages,
drew more current, so the components were more "robust" and generally
speaking were less subject to damage from surges - although a direct
lightning strike would usually do them grevious harm as well.


Fast forward 20 years, I'm living in my own house and the large sycamore
tree across the street was hit with lightning. It damaged 2 tv's and a
pc. The tv's and pc all had surge protectors, but were damaged, anyway.


Do you have underground electrical service? Not saying this is what
happened, but if the electrical cables run underground just beside the
street, and the roots of that sycamore grow down and around those
power cables, being hit by lightning MAY have "injected" a surge into
the otherwize well-protected underground power distribution grid. Or
the surge may have come in the internet/TV line and done the damage
without affecting the electrical system in any serious manner.

Or if you have "overhead" electrical service, the Sycamore may have
been a lot closer to the power wires than the old oak years ago, and
got a lot more voltage induced (or otherwize transferred) on the wire
by the strike
I'm not an electrician


Me either! I run for cover when it gets stormy because of the lightning
possibility.
I'm not an electrician either, but my Dad was and I worked with him
as a young feller - and I am a computer technician and as a younger
guy I built and repaired radios and other electronics as a hobby.

I also spent many years as an automotive mechanic and auto-electric
technician, troubleshooting electronic fuel injection, electronic
ignition, cruise controls, and anything else on a car that depended on
electrons or "magic smoke" to function.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:55:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.

No wonder others call him troll_4. He is now posting in other discussions, with nothing useful to contribute. He wastes bandwidth now in other threads to post cheapshots.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 4:09:33 PM UTC-5, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:55:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.

No wonder others call him troll_4. He is now posting in other discussions, with nothing useful to contribute. He wastes bandwidth now in other threads to post cheapshots.

If you kids don't behave, I'm pulling The Internet over and taking your Usenet away. You won't get it back until we get to Grandma's house. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Stern Monster

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:24:48 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

We did this stuff in facilities that must suffer direct lightning strikes without damage. In some cases, damage could mean major explosions.

Concepts such as low impedance are not taught to electricians. Electricians know what must connect to what for human safety. Code is only about human safety - not about transistor safety. Sometimes we had to teach electricians how to wire to also exceed code requirements.

A good electrician is great to have. He can show what is necessary to pass inspection. And show how code requires things to be wired; resulting in a 'damn good idea' revelation.

But protection of equipment (ie appliances and transistors) involves aspects not require by code. An earth ground required by code is best upgraded to both meet code and exceed code requirements to also provide surge protection. Concepts such as equipotential and conductivity apply. In at least one case, a nuclear hardened communication facility needed its earth ground upgraded to stop damage from direct lightning strikes. Concepts that apply (such as longitudinal and transverse currents) would be understood by engineers; and not by electricians or technicians.

Basic concept of surge protection was demonstrated by Franklin in 1752. How to make that principle work better for semiconductors is even discussed in papers in 1950s Bell System Technical Journals when telephone COs were converting from frame relays to semiconductor switching. They discovered that techniques used to protect mechanical relays for decades (with some exceptions) were also sufficient to protect transistors. And still, so many do not understand why 'whole house' protection is so critically important. Transistors arriving in 1970 homes made that protection necessary there.

Only summarized is how protection is done. 'Art' of protection is single point earth ground. What a homeowner should / can do to have or upgrade protection (even for HVAC equipment) has not yet been discussed since nobody has asked. Earthing is the 'art' of surge protection.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:22:20 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Me either! I run for cover when it gets stormy because of the lightning
possibility.

All this stuff is simple once some simply concepts, even introduced in elementary school science, are remembered. An electric current does not flow if it does not have both an incoming and outgoing path. Many things, often considered not electrically conductive, actually are including linoleum tile and earth.

An example. Lightning must connect to earthborne charges maybe five miles distant. A shortest path is three miles down to a tree and four miles through earth. A cow, maybe 40 feet from that tree, is killed. How? Lightning did not strike the cow (according to conclusions based only upon observation). Ah. But lightning did strike that cow. It did have both an incoming and outgoing path. A more conductive cow meant that direct lightning strike went up a cow's hind legs and down its fore legs.

Previously noted was that earthing is an 'art'. This cow is a perfect example. Damage to anything (ie a golfer) is always about how that current flows. Therefore properly constructed barns are surrounded by an earthed loop.. A golfer standing with feet together is less likely to be harmed. Concept, in both cases, is called single point earth ground.

In a first example, a lightning current did not find a destructive path via household appliances. In a second case, it did. Protection is always about whether that current needs to connect to charges (maybe four miles away) destructively via household appliances. Or harmlessly outside by some other path. Protection is always about how/where that current flows.

Again, damage is always about the incoming and outgoing path. If that path remains outside, then no current is incoming and outgoing to destroy household appliances.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:27:24 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:24:48 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

We did this stuff in facilities that must suffer direct lightning strikes without damage. In some cases, damage could mean major explosions.

Concepts such as low impedance are not taught to electricians. Electricians know what must connect to what for human safety. Code is only about human safety - not about transistor safety. Sometimes we had to teach electricians how to wire to also exceed code requirements.

A good electrician is great to have. He can show what is necessary to pass inspection. And show how code requires things to be wired; resulting in a 'damn good idea' revelation.

But protection of equipment (ie appliances and transistors) involves aspects not require by code. An earth ground required by code is best upgraded to both meet code and exceed code requirements to also provide surge protection. Concepts such as equipotential and conductivity apply. In at least one case, a nuclear hardened communication facility needed its earth ground upgraded to stop damage from direct lightning strikes. Concepts that apply (such as longitudinal and transverse currents) would be understood by engineers; and not by electricians or technicians.

Basic concept of surge protection was demonstrated by Franklin in 1752. How to make that principle work better for semiconductors is even discussed in papers in 1950s Bell System Technical Journals when telephone COs were converting from frame relays to semiconductor switching. They discovered that techniques used to protect mechanical relays for decades (with some exceptions) were also sufficient to protect transistors. And still, so many do not understand why 'whole house' protection is so critically important. Transistors arriving in 1970 homes made that protection necessary there.

Only summarized is how protection is done. 'Art' of protection is single point earth ground. What a homeowner should / can do to have or upgrade protection (even for HVAC equipment) has not yet been discussed since nobody has asked. Earthing is the 'art' of surge protection.

Mugs asked it you were an electrician. You never answered her.

Are questions to you so difficult?

How does a ground work in a vehicle tail light without an electrode in
earth?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

If you kids don't behave, I'm pulling The Internet over and taking your Usenet away. You won't get it back until we get to Grandma's house. ^_^

.... no more ice cream either. You have to pee on the side of a red
dirt road -- in public. In front of Goad and everybody.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 5:05:32 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

If you kids don't behave, I'm pulling The Internet over and taking your Usenet away. You won't get it back until we get to Grandma's house. ^_^

... no more ice cream either. You have to pee on the side of a red
dirt road -- in public. In front of Goad and everybody.

See the post I made about urine and electricity not mixing well. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Pee Monster

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:49:05 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:27:24 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:24:48 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

We did this stuff in facilities that must suffer direct lightning strikes without damage. In some cases, damage could mean major explosions.

Concepts such as low impedance are not taught to electricians. Electricians know what must connect to what for human safety. Code is only about human safety - not about transistor safety. Sometimes we had to teach electricians how to wire to also exceed code requirements.

A good electrician is great to have. He can show what is necessary to pass inspection. And show how code requires things to be wired; resulting in a 'damn good idea' revelation.

But protection of equipment (ie appliances and transistors) involves aspects not require by code. An earth ground required by code is best upgraded to both meet code and exceed code requirements to also provide surge protection. Concepts such as equipotential and conductivity apply. In at least one case, a nuclear hardened communication facility needed its earth ground upgraded to stop damage from direct lightning strikes. Concepts that apply (such as longitudinal and transverse currents) would be understood by engineers; and not by electricians or technicians.

Basic concept of surge protection was demonstrated by Franklin in 1752. How to make that principle work better for semiconductors is even discussed in papers in 1950s Bell System Technical Journals when telephone COs were converting from frame relays to semiconductor switching. They discovered that techniques used to protect mechanical relays for decades (with some exceptions) were also sufficient to protect transistors. And still, so many do not understand why 'whole house' protection is so critically important. Transistors arriving in 1970 homes made that protection necessary there.

Only summarized is how protection is done. 'Art' of protection is single point earth ground. What a homeowner should / can do to have or upgrade protection (even for HVAC equipment) has not yet been discussed since nobody has asked. Earthing is the 'art' of surge protection.

Mugs asked it you were an electrician. You never answered her.

Are questions to you so difficult?

How does a ground work in a vehicle tail light without an electrode in
earth?
I'll step in here -
There is "ground" and there is "ground" In an automobile "ground" is
used as a term for "chassis return".Common procedure today is
"negative ground" where positive wires run from the battery positive
through switches to loads, and the negative connection of every device
is connected to the chassis - which is connected to the battery
negative. Some circuits are "ground switched" with the switch between
the device and the chassis. This is common in fuel injectors and (in
many cars) headlights.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 19:33:20 -0400, wrote:

How does a ground work in a vehicle tail light without an electrode in
earth?

I'll step in here -
There is "ground" and there is "ground" In an automobile "ground" is
used as a term for "chassis return".Common procedure today is
"negative ground" where positive wires run from the battery positive
through switches to loads, and the negative connection of every device
is connected to the chassis - which is connected to the battery
negative. Some circuits are "ground switched" with the switch between
the device and the chassis. This is common in fuel injectors and (in
many cars) headlights.

westom demands an earth ground in his advise. How does a boat motor
run without a earth ground electrode? He does not see what Trader
explains to him. I'm not an electrician though.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
How does a ground work in a vehicle tail light without an
electrode in earth?

Posted 5 days ago. "Problem is your term 'ground'. Which ground? Chassis ground? Analog ground? Floating ground? Receptacle ground? Ground bus in a breaker box? Digital ground? Some are even electrically interconnected and are still electrically different."

Silly Rabbit. Tricks are for kids.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 7:18:35 PM UTC-5, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
How does a ground work in a vehicle tail light without an
electrode in earth?

Posted 5 days ago. "Problem is your term 'ground'. Which ground? Chassis ground? Analog ground? Floating ground? Receptacle ground? Ground bus in a breaker box? Digital ground? Some are even electrically interconnected and are still electrically different."

Silly Rabbit. Tricks are for kids.

Do you use a helium filled balloon to hold up a floating ground? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Confused Monster

On 10/23/2015 3:19 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:22:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/23/2015 12:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:24:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

If westom is an electrician I would not hire him.

ok Just trying to make sense of the discussion.

An SPD saved my 50" Plasma TV. I lost an older one without an SPD.
The server at work was saved from a brownout surge on an APC battery
unit. I suspect nearby lightning caused a main board damage on my
refrigerator.

Maybe he can explain _why_ planes have no earth ground. My guess he
thinks every appliance needs a barn lightning rod with an electrode.
Or planes drag a chain behind it to earth ground, like fuel trucks.

Long time ago when I was still living my parents, lightning hit the big
oak tree in our front yard. We felt the electricity in the air about a
split second before it hit, but nothing in the house was damaged. Not
sure why, though, because we didn't use surge protectors for anything
back then.

The Oak tree took the direct hit and not much got into your electrical
supply. You likely didn't have much if any "solid state" equipment
back then either. Most "solid state" equipment used in homes today
runs on between 3.5 and 18 volts, with the switch-mode power supply -
and occaisionally just an old-school transformer/rectifier circuit,
connecting it to mains power.
If a surge "punches through" the isolation of the power supply in any
way and the voltage getting to those solid state devices (transistors,
CMOS logic chips, microprocessors etc) excedes their maximum operating
voltage, the device is "toast" and the equipment it is part of is
damaged..
Better equipment has more and more effective surge and overvoltage
protection, and quite often internal protection fuses are the only
casualty where on a cheaper piece of equipment the damage may be so
extensive it is not worth attempting to repair it.

Older electronic equipment (using tubes, etc) ran on higher voltages,
drew more current, so the components were more "robust" and generally
speaking were less subject to damage from surges - although a direct
lightning strike would usually do them grevious harm as well.

We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.

Fast forward 20 years, I'm living in my own house and the large sycamore
tree across the street was hit with lightning. It damaged 2 tv's and a
pc. The tv's and pc all had surge protectors, but were damaged, anyway.


Do you have underground electrical service? Not saying this is what
happened, but if the electrical cables run underground just beside the
street, and the roots of that sycamore grow down and around those
power cables, being hit by lightning MAY have "injected" a surge into
the otherwize well-protected underground power distribution grid. Or
the surge may have come in the internet/TV line and done the damage
without affecting the electrical system in any serious manner.

Or if you have "overhead" electrical service, the Sycamore may have
been a lot closer to the power wires than the old oak years ago, and
got a lot more voltage induced (or otherwize transferred) on the wire
by the strike

Our power lines are above ground behind my house, and behind the house
across the street. I don't think we're connected because sometimes their
side of the street with lose power and we'll still have it, and vice versa.


I'm not an electrician


Me either! I run for cover when it gets stormy because of the lightning
possibility.


I'm not an electrician either, but my Dad was and I worked with him
as a young feller - and I am a computer technician and as a younger
guy I built and repaired radios and other electronics as a hobby.

I also spent many years as an automotive mechanic and auto-electric
technician, troubleshooting electronic fuel injection, electronic
ignition, cruise controls, and anything else on a car that depended on
electrons or "magic smoke" to function.


There's so much I could probably learn. Once upon a time I didn't know
how to put oil in my van! LOL

--
Maggie

On 10/23/2015 4:27 PM, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:24:48 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

We did this stuff in facilities that must suffer direct lightning strikes without damage. In some cases, damage could mean major explosions.

Concepts such as low impedance are not taught to electricians. Electricians know what must connect to what for human safety. Code is only about human safety - not about transistor safety. Sometimes we had to teach electricians how to wire to also exceed code requirements.

A good electrician is great to have. He can show what is necessary to pass inspection. And show how code requires things to be wired; resulting in a 'damn good idea' revelation.

But protection of equipment (ie appliances and transistors) involves aspects not require by code. An earth ground required by code is best upgraded to both meet code and exceed code requirements to also provide surge protection. Concepts such as equipotential and conductivity apply. In at least one case, a nuclear hardened communication facility needed its earth ground upgraded to stop damage from direct lightning strikes. Concepts that apply (such as longitudinal and transverse currents) would be understood by engineers; and not by electricians or technicians.

Basic concept of surge protection was demonstrated by Franklin in 1752. How to make that principle work better for semiconductors is even discussed in papers in 1950s Bell System Technical Journals when telephone COs were converting from frame relays to semiconductor switching. They discovered that techniques used to protect mechanical relays for decades (with some exceptions) were also sufficient to protect transistors. And still, so many do not understand why 'whole house' protection is so critically important. Transistors arriving in 1970 homes made that protection necessary there.

Only summarized is how protection is done. 'Art' of protection is single point earth ground. What a homeowner should / can do to have or upgrade protection (even for HVAC equipment) has not yet been discussed since nobody has asked. Earthing is the 'art' of surge protection.


Thanks for the explanation. You mentioned a nuclear hardened
communication facility. What exactly is that? Were you like an engineer?

--
Maggie

On 10/23/2015 4:43 PM, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 2:22:20 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Me either! I run for cover when it gets stormy because of the lightning
possibility.

All this stuff is simple once some simply concepts, even introduced in elementary school science, are remembered. An electric current does not flow if it does not have both an incoming and outgoing path. Many things, often considered not electrically conductive, actually are including linoleum tile and earth.

An example. Lightning must connect to earthborne charges maybe five miles distant. A shortest path is three miles down to a tree and four miles through earth. A cow, maybe 40 feet from that tree, is killed. How? Lightning did not strike the cow (according to conclusions based only upon observation). Ah. But lightning did strike that cow. It did have both an incoming and outgoing path. A more conductive cow meant that direct lightning strike went up a cow's hind legs and down its fore legs.

Previously noted was that earthing is an 'art'. This cow is a perfect example. Damage to anything (ie a golfer) is always about how that current flows. Therefore properly constructed barns are surrounded by an earthed loop. A golfer standing with feet together is less likely to be harmed. Concept, in both cases, is called single point earth ground.

In a first example, a lightning current did not find a destructive path via household appliances. In a second case, it did. Protection is always about whether that current needs to connect to charges (maybe four miles away) destructively via household appliances. Or harmlessly outside by some other path. Protection is always about how/where that current flows.

Again, damage is always about the incoming and outgoing path. If that path remains outside, then no current is incoming and outgoing to destroy household appliances.


I understand. Thanks for the explanation.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:42:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/23/2015 3:19 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:22:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/23/2015 12:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:24:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

If westom is an electrician I would not hire him.

ok Just trying to make sense of the discussion.

An SPD saved my 50" Plasma TV. I lost an older one without an SPD.
The server at work was saved from a brownout surge on an APC battery
unit. I suspect nearby lightning caused a main board damage on my
refrigerator.

Maybe he can explain _why_ planes have no earth ground. My guess he
thinks every appliance needs a barn lightning rod with an electrode.
Or planes drag a chain behind it to earth ground, like fuel trucks.

Long time ago when I was still living my parents, lightning hit the big
oak tree in our front yard. We felt the electricity in the air about a
split second before it hit, but nothing in the house was damaged. Not
sure why, though, because we didn't use surge protectors for anything
back then.

The Oak tree took the direct hit and not much got into your electrical
supply. You likely didn't have much if any "solid state" equipment
back then either. Most "solid state" equipment used in homes today
runs on between 3.5 and 18 volts, with the switch-mode power supply -
and occaisionally just an old-school transformer/rectifier circuit,
connecting it to mains power.
If a surge "punches through" the isolation of the power supply in any
way and the voltage getting to those solid state devices (transistors,
CMOS logic chips, microprocessors etc) excedes their maximum operating
voltage, the device is "toast" and the equipment it is part of is
damaged..
Better equipment has more and more effective surge and overvoltage
protection, and quite often internal protection fuses are the only
casualty where on a cheaper piece of equipment the damage may be so
extensive it is not worth attempting to repair it.

Older electronic equipment (using tubes, etc) ran on higher voltages,
drew more current, so the components were more "robust" and generally
speaking were less subject to damage from surges - although a direct
lightning strike would usually do them grevious harm as well.

We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.
Unless they are "dual conversion" UPS units you are not getting the
protection you think you are.

Fast forward 20 years, I'm living in my own house and the large sycamore
tree across the street was hit with lightning. It damaged 2 tv's and a
pc. The tv's and pc all had surge protectors, but were damaged, anyway.


Do you have underground electrical service? Not saying this is what
happened, but if the electrical cables run underground just beside the
street, and the roots of that sycamore grow down and around those
power cables, being hit by lightning MAY have "injected" a surge into
the otherwize well-protected underground power distribution grid. Or
the surge may have come in the internet/TV line and done the damage
without affecting the electrical system in any serious manner.

Or if you have "overhead" electrical service, the Sycamore may have
been a lot closer to the power wires than the old oak years ago, and
got a lot more voltage induced (or otherwize transferred) on the wire
by the strike

Our power lines are above ground behind my house, and behind the house
across the street. I don't think we're connected because sometimes their
side of the street with lose power and we'll still have it, and vice versa.


I'm not an electrician


Me either! I run for cover when it gets stormy because of the lightning
possibility.


I'm not an electrician either, but my Dad was and I worked with him
as a young feller - and I am a computer technician and as a younger
guy I built and repaired radios and other electronics as a hobby.

I also spent many years as an automotive mechanic and auto-electric
technician, troubleshooting electronic fuel injection, electronic
ignition, cruise controls, and anything else on a car that depended on
electrons or "magic smoke" to function.


There's so much I could probably learn. Once upon a time I didn't know
how to put oil in my van! LOL

On 10/23/2015 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:42:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

[...]

We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.

Unless they are "dual conversion" UPS units you are not getting the
protection you think you are.

Dual conversion?


--
Maggie

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:22:17 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/23/2015 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:42:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

[...]

We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.

Unless they are "dual conversion" UPS units you are not getting the
protection you think you are.

Dual conversion?
Yes Also known as OnLine or full-time.. A more expensive unit that is
a "separately derived power source". AC Line voltage is converted to
DC through an isolation transformer and charges the battery. The DC is
then converted back to AC to run your computer.. There is no
switch-over time and only the ground is electrically connected to the
"mains" power.. They generally have superior surge isolation compared
to standby (the typical low end unit like an APC BackUPS) or line
interactive (the better more expensive units that can adjust line
voltage up or down without going on battery)

wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:22:17 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/23/2015 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:42:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

[...]

We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.

Unless they are "dual conversion" UPS units you are not getting the
protection you think you are.

Dual conversion?
Yes Also known as OnLine or full-time.. A more expensive unit that is
a "separately derived power source". AC Line voltage is converted to
DC through an isolation transformer and charges the battery. The DC is
then converted back to AC to run your computer.. There is no
switch-over time and only the ground is electrically connected to the
"mains" power.. They generally have superior surge isolation compared
to standby (the typical low end unit like an APC BackUPS) or line
interactive (the better more expensive units that can adjust line
voltage up or down without going on battery)

Great unit. Unfortunately, ground surges can still occur if there is more
than one ground, loop.

Greg

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 4:16:57 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:58:20 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:58:40 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:09:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:55:59 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf

That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.


Clare, it figures that you'd return and take the wrong side of the debate.

Wrong side? I didn't take any side on this debate in the posting you
replied to. I just agreed with your last sentance - "Again trader4 has
thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps
referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and
that contradict his beliefs."
Not surprising, given that you're wrong on electrical issues about 80%
of the time. Your forte is making up code requirements that don't exist.


No, I just see things from the Canadian side of the border, where our
code is much more stringent than the US code when it comes to anything
electrical - and most other "safety" codes as well.
But in this case, since I *supported* you, I would hope that you would have
some better sense. YOU had started this debate with the BS WTom posted.
I came in later supporting what you posted. And now, you're dumb enough
to again attack me? Good grief.

I attacked you? How?
I said Plonk Trader. Not you.
And almost everyone here knows WTom and his BS history going back years.

And finally, if you can't follow the posts, don't want to participate, how
hard is it to just skip the thread? Here's a thought. Go **** yourself.

Oren - I thought a lot better of you than that. Shame on yourself
And you seem to have trouble following the posts too if you think my
last post was attacking you. I think your skin is getting a bit thin.

Don't be silly. I just hit reply and never said a word about you,
Clarence. The reply was so that you would see what Trader said to
you. Oh well. Shame on me. I'm bad

ROFL.... And you helped prove exactly what I said, that Clare is
confused once again.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 4:19:21 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:22:20 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/23/2015 12:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:24:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

If westom is an electrician I would not hire him.

ok Just trying to make sense of the discussion.

An SPD saved my 50" Plasma TV. I lost an older one without an SPD.
The server at work was saved from a brownout surge on an APC battery
unit. I suspect nearby lightning caused a main board damage on my
refrigerator.

Maybe he can explain _why_ planes have no earth ground. My guess he
thinks every appliance needs a barn lightning rod with an electrode.
Or planes drag a chain behind it to earth ground, like fuel trucks.

Long time ago when I was still living my parents, lightning hit the big
oak tree in our front yard. We felt the electricity in the air about a
split second before it hit, but nothing in the house was damaged. Not
sure why, though, because we didn't use surge protectors for anything
back then.

The Oak tree took the direct hit and not much got into your electrical
supply. You likely didn't have much if any "solid state" equipment
back then either. Most "solid state" equipment used in homes today
runs on between 3.5 and 18 volts, with the switch-mode power supply -
and occaisionally just an old-school transformer/rectifier circuit,
connecting it to mains power.
If a surge "punches through" the isolation of the power supply in any
way and the voltage getting to those solid state devices (transistors,
CMOS logic chips, microprocessors etc) excedes their maximum operating
voltage, the device is "toast" and the equipment it is part of is
damaged..

Noit exactly true. Most devices can withstand short duration voltages
well above their max *operating* voltage and still not sustain damage.



Better equipment has more and more effective surge and overvoltage
protection, and quite often internal protection fuses are the only
casualty where on a cheaper piece of equipment the damage may be so
extensive it is not worth attempting to repair it.

Older electronic equipment (using tubes, etc) ran on higher voltages,
drew more current, so the components were more "robust" and generally
speaking were less subject to damage from surges - although a direct
lightning strike would usually do them grevious harm as well.


Fast forward 20 years, I'm living in my own house and the large sycamore
tree across the street was hit with lightning. It damaged 2 tv's and a
pc. The tv's and pc all had surge protectors, but were damaged, anyway.


Do you have underground electrical service? Not saying this is what
happened, but if the electrical cables run underground just beside the
street, and the roots of that sycamore grow down and around those
power cables, being hit by lightning MAY have "injected" a surge into
the otherwize well-protected underground power distribution grid. Or
the surge may have come in the internet/TV line and done the damage
without affecting the electrical system in any serious manner.

Or if you have "overhead" electrical service, the Sycamore may have
been a lot closer to the power wires than the old oak years ago, and
got a lot more voltage induced (or otherwize transferred) on the wire
by the strike

The most probative thing here is that the TVs and a PC are the only
things listed as damaged. Those are appliances that don't just have
a connection to AC, they are also connected to cable, phone, antenna,
etc. The first question is, did those other TV/PC connections run
through those plug-in surge protectors, ie, there were designed to also
protect coax, phone, etc and were connected that way? If not, there's
your answer.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 5:27:31 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 12:24:48 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
You sure know a lot about this subject. Are you an electrician?

We did this stuff in facilities that must suffer direct lightning strikes without damage. In some cases, damage could mean major explosions.

Concepts such as low impedance are not taught to electricians. Electricians know what must connect to what for human safety. Code is only about human safety - not about transistor safety. Sometimes we had to teach electricians how to wire to also exceed code requirements.

A good electrician is great to have. He can show what is necessary to pass inspection. And show how code requires things to be wired; resulting in a 'damn good idea' revelation.


Avoidance of the simple question noted.



But protection of equipment (ie appliances and transistors) involves aspects not require by code. An earth ground required by code is best upgraded to both meet code and exceed code requirements to also provide surge protection. Concepts such as equipotential and conductivity apply. In at least one case, a nuclear hardened communication facility needed its earth ground upgraded to stop damage from direct lightning strikes. Concepts that apply (such as longitudinal and transverse currents) would be understood by engineers; and not by electricians or technicians.

Basic concept of surge protection was demonstrated by Franklin in 1752. How to make that principle work better for semiconductors is even discussed in papers in 1950s Bell System Technical Journals when telephone COs were converting from frame relays to semiconductor switching. They discovered that techniques used to protect mechanical relays for decades (with some exceptions) were also sufficient to protect transistors. And still, so many do not understand why 'whole house' protection is so critically important. Transistors arriving in 1970 homes made that protection necessary there.

Only summarized is how protection is done. 'Art' of protection is single point earth ground. What a homeowner should / can do to have or upgrade protection (even for HVAC equipment) has not yet been discussed since nobody has asked. Earthing is the 'art' of surge protection.

The questions are all answered in the links I've provided here
many times. Those documents were written by 5 engineers, all
experts in surge protection. Of course you refuse to read them
and acknowledge what they say.


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

http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf