On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
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

LOL, sure he'll answer that just like he answered your previous,
simple question.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.

Read specification numbers. How many joules does it claim to absorb? Hundreds? A destructive surge is hundreds of thousands of joules. That UPS could not have a smaller protector part. Yes it is a protector. It has just enough joules (near zero) so that advertising and salesmen can claim it has 100% protection. Subjective claims mean nothing. Numbers are esesntial for perspective.

Repeatedly noted is what a protector must connect: a low impedance (ie less than 10 foot) connection to single point earth ground. Does your UPS have that dedicated earthing wire?

From a paper presented in the Power Quality conference in 1990 called "Computer Network Power Protection Problems, Myths and Solutions"
Myth 2: "UPSes Provide Dependable Surge Protection."
Because a UPS costs far more than a surge protector, it
is commonly assumed to provide premium surge protection.
Essentially all micro-computer UPSes, lOOOvA and under,
are a combination of an inexpensive MOV surge suppresser
and a battery back-up power source. The MOV surge
protection is designed to protect the UPS circuitry, and
diverts incoming surges to ground like a common surge
protector. Once on ground, the surge will circumvent the
UPS and couple directly into any computer
datalines.
Another risk exposure with UPSes is the alternative power
path around the battery and inverter. So called standby
UPSes normally provide direct utility power to the
computer, with only the MOVs at the UPS power inlet as
surge protection, while on-line UPSes generally have a
bypass circuit to enable utility power to flow directly
to the load in the event of UPS failure. Both these
circuits provide paths to the protected load for
incoming surges. In the case of the standby UPS, the
path is direct, while for the on-line UPS, the surge
must pass through the transfer switch, but these
switches are often solid state components with modest
tolerance for high energy surges, so they may not
prevent a moderate to sever surge from passing
through them to the protected load.


Does not matter if incoming wires are overhead or underground. A Tech Note demonstrates building surge protection. Even the underground wire needs protection:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/...es/tncr002.pdf

Surge Protection 101

You'll probably have to do some digging in the dirt but inspect the
ground rod(s) connections for your entrance panel.

Are they loose and/or corroded? Most are. Fix that first.

Exothermic bonding is the best connection but most people are too cheap
to have that done.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. You mentioned a nuclear hardened
communication facility. What exactly is that? Were you like an engineer?

Military communication facilities must be 'hardened' to even withstand nuclear blasts - both the explosive force and electromagnetic transients.

Some telephone exchanges (COs) are even hardened. Their walls were lined in lead.


I stated multiple times that I am an engineer. Defined was a difference between electricians (or technicians) and engineers to further make the difference obvious:
"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."

An electrician typically would not understand basic electrical principles that, for example, are required to understand electrical concepts such as impedance and equipotential. Electricians are taught how to wire stuff - not necessarily why.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 11:17:33 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.

Read specification numbers. How many joules does it claim to absorb? Hundreds? A destructive surge is hundreds of thousands of joules.

Two obvious fallacies there. One is that a surge of hundreds of thousands
of joules will almost never reach a UPS or plug-in surge protector adjacent to a PC. Second is that the joule rating
on the surge protector is how much energy the *surge protector can safely
dissipate itself as heat*, not how much energy it can allow through it.
The vast majority of any surge isn't dissipated in the surge protector,
it's not intended to absorb or dissipate it at all. It's function is to
shunt the surge energy to ground.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 11:31:47 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. You mentioned a nuclear hardened
communication facility. What exactly is that? Were you like an engineer?

Military communication facilities must be 'hardened' to even withstand nuclear blasts - both the explosive force and electromagnetic transients.

Some telephone exchanges (COs) are even hardened. Their walls were lined in lead.


I stated multiple times that I am an engineer.

Funny I don't recall seeing that stated here even once. It's also curious
that when someone asks if you're an electrician, the answer is just "I'm
an engineer..." Not, I'm an electrical engineer, civil engineer, mechanical
engineer, etc. There is a difference.


Defined was a difference between electricians (or technicians) and engineers to further make the difference obvious:
"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."

An electrician typically would not understand basic electrical principles that, for example, are required to understand electrical concepts such as impedance and equipotential. Electricians are taught how to wire stuff - not necessarily why.

Can't wait for some of the electricians to comment on that.....

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:57:36 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
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.

Obviously trader_4 does not read his citations. Cable, phone, and antenna are required have (even by safety codes for human safety) surge protection. It is installed for free. Of course, that protection is only as effective as an earth ground that a homeowner must provide.

An engineer will explain, again, how surges do damage and how damage is averted. Maybe this time he will read it.

Most common incoming path is AC electric. A direct lightning strike (ie 20,000 amps) far down the street is a direct strike incoming to every appliance. Are all appliances damaged? Of course not. It is called electricity. Both an incoming and an outgoing path must exist.

If a surge is all but invited inside (not earthed by a 'whole house' solution), then it is hunting for earth destructively via appliances. PCs, TVs, and other appliances may connect to cable, telephone, or satellite dish. Those have properly earthed protection. Therefore can also be a best and destructive path to earth.

Incoming on AC mains. Outgoing via ethernet, phone line, HDMI port, or coax. Damage exists only on some appliances depending on what path a surge (ie lightning) discovers. By earthing a surge, those damaged appliances protected other appliances.

Unfortunately the naive made conclusions only from observation. A damaged HDMI post, coax, or ethernet means that was the incoming path? Of course not. Damage is often on an outgoing side. Damage can often be via a wire that connects best to earth.

Damage is routinely averted by earthing every incoming wire. As was understood even 100 years ago. As required by codes, industry standards, etc for cable, phone, satellite dish, and antenna. Incoming wires not required to be surge protected is AC mains. If a homeowner does not properly earth a 'whole house' solution, then damage is considered a human mistake.

Effective protection is that well proven, many times less expensive than 'magic' plug-in protectors, easily installed, and always requires a low impedance (ie less than 10 foot) connection to single point earth ground. A homeowner must first learn and then initiate a solution. Protection is always defined by earth ground - not some 'magic' box.

Once a surge is inside, nothing will stop a destructive hunt for earth ground. Some are victims (TV, PC, DVR, answering machine) because they connect to wires that already have superior and effective protection - ie cable and telephone. Only a 'whole house' solution effectively protects them.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 11:37:36 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Two obvious fallacies there.

Only fallacies are same myths and lies from a technically naive denier. If hundreds of thousands of joules are not earthed at the service entrance, then a destructive surge (even if smaller) easily overwhelms protection inside appliances. Even surges too tiny to overwhelm that protection can still destroy near zero protectors. In rare cases, even create house fires.

If a protector is adjacent to appliances, then it can only block or absorb a surge. It cannot connect to what harmlessly absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules. Adjacent protectors even make appliance damage easier. Another example: a surge on a hot (black) wire might be connected to the safety ground (green) wire. (Safety ground is not earth ground). Now that surge has completely bypassed protection inside a computer's PSU. Now that surge is connected directly into a computer's motherboard. He calls that protection?

Oh, that cannot happen because it is called a surge protector. Please.

A technically naive naysayer has no idea why Martzloff, et al repeatedly warn of damage BECAUSE a protector is adjacent to appliances ... and too far from earth ground. Because a 'whole house' solution was not installed.

How many times must the word impedance be ignored before a technically naive naysayer decides to learn what it is? Safety ground clearly is not earth ground. Define how many times with numbers? And still the naysayer cannot tell the difference. Technical ignorance and a vendetta against learning is evident. Effective protectors connect low impedance (ie less than 10 feet) to single point earth ground making irrelevant everything in his latest denial.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:00:30 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:57:36 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
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.

Obviously trader_4 does not read his citations. Cable, phone, and antenna are required have (even by safety codes for human safety) surge protection.. It is installed for free. Of course, that protection is only as effective as an earth ground that a homeowner must provide.


I read and understand the citation. Here is the relevant section:

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

5. MULTI-PORT POINT-OF-USE (PLUG-IN) PROTECTORS
Multi-port point-of-use protectors (also called plug-in protectors) normally
consist of an AC protector and one or more signal-line protectors, in a single
assembly, designed to be installed near equipment that connects to both AC and
signal lines.
These protectors serve three purposes:

1) The AC protectors normally have lower effective surge limiting voltage
than the panel protectors described in Section 2, and also might protect
against sustained AC overvoltage (Section 5.1).

2) The signal line protectors normally have lower surge limiting voltage
than the primary signal protectors described in Section 3, and might also

3) The grounds for all the protectors are connected (bonded) so that intersystem
voltages are minimized. As stated above, under lightning
conditions, large voltages can be developed between, e.g., phone, CATV
and AC grounds, and these voltage differences are frequently the cause
of lightning damage (Section 5.3).

An additional feature of the point-of-use protectors, if they are properly used (see
Section 6), is that all surge currents which come in from AC wiring and signal
connections (both active wires and grounds) are disposed of via the AC (green
wire) ground, back to the building ground. So downstream from the multiport
point-of-use protector, there are no large circulating surge currents to damage
equipment or interfere with operation."



Ok, so #2 takes care of what you're talking about. Cleary the IEEE is
saying that the primary protection that you're talking about on cable,
phone, etc is NOT sufficient.

And note that they are also, *again* endorsing the use of plug-in surge
protectors. Note that they don't say they cause damage, fires, are not
needed and should not be used. They say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.


An engineer will explain, again, how surges do damage and how damage is averted. Maybe this time he will read it.


Four electrical engineers that are experts in surge protection wrote
that piece I excerpted above. It's 100% consistent with what I've posted,
and completely opposite of what you say.



Most common incoming path is AC electric.

A direct lightning strike (ie 20,000 amps) far down the street is a direct
strike incoming to every appliance.

Sigh, lost in the wilderness yet again. First, if lightning can hit the
AC service, then why can't it similarly hit the phone wires strung on the
same pole?

But more importantly, a 20KA strike far down the street is *not* a
*direct strike* incoming to every appliance. As explained to you
many times, the vast majority of that energy flashes over and finds
a path to ground long before it ever enters the house. A small portion
of it may end up at the appliance.





Are all appliances damaged? Of course not.

Who ever said they all were?


It is called electricity. Both an incoming and an outgoing path must exist.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:00:28 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Funny I don't recall seeing that stated here even once.

trader_4 again admits to ignoring. The engineer did this stuff. trader_4 obviously did not. How many times was that posted - and ignored?

Electricians are only taught what must connect to what. Electricians are not taught impedance, equipotential, electromagnetic wave theory, circuit theory, semiconductor electronics, or the other relevant electrical concepts that explain why we do surge protection. That point is significant. Electricians are taught about human safety; not about transistor safety.

Some electricians do not upgrade earth ground. They only know what code requires. Would not understand why that same ground wire must be shorter - ie less than 10 feet, no sharp bends, etc. Electricians are not taught how electricity works; are only taught what is required to install it safely. As explained previously and multiple times.

Fewer and better electricians learn why a connection from protector to earth must have no sharp bends and must not be inside a metallic conduit.

How many times was this posted - and he still denies it? Even his own citations recommend a 'whole house' solution - where earth ground is the most critical component. He still denies it. He even denies a fire threat.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 10:31:47 AM UTC-5, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. You mentioned a nuclear hardened
communication facility. What exactly is that? Were you like an engineer?

Military communication facilities must be 'hardened' to even withstand nuclear blasts - both the explosive force and electromagnetic transients.

Some telephone exchanges (COs) are even hardened. Their walls were lined in lead.

I stated multiple times that I am an engineer. Defined was a difference between electricians (or technicians) and engineers to further make the difference obvious:
"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."

An electrician typically would not understand basic electrical principles that, for example, are required to understand electrical concepts such as impedance and equipotential. Electricians are taught how to wire stuff - not necessarily why.

Someone getting training as an electrician may not necessarily get electronic theory training but often get training in electrical theory and I can assure you that many people working as electricians know a lot more about electrical and electronic theory than you may think. Most electricians can read, I hope. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Electrical Monster

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 11:37:36 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Two obvious fallacies there.

Only fallacies are same myths and lies from a technically naive denier. If hundreds of thousands of joules are not earthed at the service entrance, then a destructive surge (even if smaller) easily overwhelms protection inside appliances. Even surges too tiny to overwhelm that protection can still destroy near zero protectors. In rare cases, even create house fires.

Nice job editing and avoiding the issues, while bringing up more nonsense.
Still not explained, how can the surge protection inside the appliance
ever work if a direct, short connection to earth is required? Somehow
it's possible for the smaller, more limited surge protection inside the
appliance to work, but according to you the same, more robust protection
inside a plug-in surge protector can't work, because it has no direct
earth ground.



If a protector is adjacent to appliances, then it can only block or absorb a surge. It cannot connect to what harmlessly absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules.

Again, the IEEE guide to surge protection says you're wrong:

"An additional feature of the point-of-use protectors, if they are properly used (see
Section 6), is that all surge currents which come in from AC wiring and signal
connections (both active wires and grounds) are disposed of via the AC (green
wire) ground, back to the building ground. So downstream from the multiport
point-of-use protector, there are no large circulating surge currents to damage
equipment or interfere with operation."





Adjacent protectors even make appliance damage easier.

Funny then that IEEE and NIST both recommend their use. Including
Martzloff, who you like to cite out of context.




Another example: a surge on a hot (black) wire might be connected to the safety ground (green) wire. (Safety ground is not earth ground). Now that surge has completely bypassed protection inside a computer's PSU.

Yep, that would be a good thing too, for most of us in the real world.
We'd rather the surge go through the $20 plug-in surge protector than
the computer.



Now that surge is connected directly into a computer's motherboard. He calls that protection?


Say what? You just told us that the plug-in shunted the surge to ground.
The plug-in surge protector has the hot, neutral, ground all clamped
together, so that the potential rise is limited. If it's a multiport
one, which it needs to be for a PC connected to phone, cable, etc, then
those lines going through it are also clamped. There is no damaging
voltage potential going to the PC.



Oh, that cannot happen because it is called a surge protector. Please.

A technically naive naysayer has no idea why Martzloff, et al repeatedly warn of damage BECAUSE a protector is adjacent to appliances ... and too far from earth ground. Because a 'whole house' solution was not installed.

Martzloff, in his own words:

"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."





How many times must the word impedance be ignored before a technically naive naysayer decides to learn what it is?

It would seem you're the naïve one. Funny thing this impedance. In your
bizarre world, it's unidirectional. A lightning strike hits the utility
pole and magically there is no impedance to keep most of it from ever
getting to an appliance inside the house. It's BANG, hundreds of thousands
of joules, the whole damn lightning strike, are at you PC. In your
world impedance only works on the returnpath of the surge, from the
plug-in surge protector back to earth. Reality is that impedance
limits the surge on the way in too.






Safety ground clearly is not earth ground. Define how many times with numbers? And still the naysayer cannot tell the difference. Technical ignorance and a vendetta against learning is evident.

Take it up with the5 IEEE engineers:

"An additional feature of the point-of-use protectors, if they are properly used (see
Section 6), is that all surge currents which come in from AC wiring and signal
connections (both active wires and grounds) are disposed of via the AC (green
wire) ground, back to the building ground. So downstream from the multiport
point-of-use protector, there are no large circulating surge currents to damage
equipment or interfere with operation."

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:32:37 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
BS. The IEEE guide clearly says so.

trader_4 has no idea what it says. He takes sentences out of context. Many completely different surges are summarized. One that is tiny (typically cause no damage) is connected on a safety ground back to the breaker box. A completely different and destructive transient is why a connection must be to earth AND must be low impedance. Why do so many professionals require that low impedance connection if safety ground wires are sufficient? Because trader_4 misreads. He intentionally ignores some paragraphs to lie.

Multiple Martzloff papers, the AT&T forum, IEEE Red and Emerald Books, and .... how many other professional sources were cited? He ignored them all. Why do we know he is lying? Where does he even cite one specification number? He doesn't. Like an extremist politician, he only makes subjective declarations - with disparaging commentary.

He intentionally ignores these from his own citations:
An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical
for the successful operation of an SPD. High surge
currents impinging on a power distribution system
having a relatively high grounding resistance can
create enormous ground potential rises, resulting in
damage. Therefore, an evaluation of the service
entrance grounding system at the time of the SPD
installation is very important.

SPD is his surge protection device. trader_4 knows he can ignore that requirement.

Safety ground is not earth ground. Wire impedance is excessive. From his own citation:
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. ...
The inductance of the wire is the determining factor
rather than the resistance of the wire. The inductance
is a function of the length and the loop area of the
circuit including the SPD.

That inductance obviously creates a high impedance meanning a plug-in protector is all but disconnected from what harmelessly absorbs a surge. Or return to numbers posted eariler. trader_4 know honesty need not provides numbers.

A wall receptacle safety ground will magically earth a tiny 100 amp surge? That wire is less than 0.2 ohms resistance. And maybe 120 ohms impedance. 100 amps times 120 ohms is 12,000 volts. That receptacle (and protector and adjacent appliances) are at less than 12,000 volts. Where is the protection?

How ironic. Figure 8 page 33 shows similar. Because impedance on a safety ground wire is excessive, then a protector could not connect to earth as trader_4 claims. It earths a surge through a nearby TV - 8000 volts destructively. Which one would expect when that 120 ohms impedance exists. Those damning numbers again.

He also ignored this:
One of the main functions of the service entrance SPD is
to reduce the surge current reaching any downstream
protectors

Of course ... for many reasons. That downstream (plug-in, point of connection) protector is not designed for a type of surge that typically causes damage. Again, trader_4 has no idea of relevant concepts such as longitudinal and transverse currents. He does not even try to demonstrate basic electrical knowledge.

That downstream protector must somehow only absorb hundreds of joules. And then another problem often seen when a 'whole house' protector is not reducing currents reaching downstream protectors ... fire. Another problem that trader_4 repeatedly denied.

More sentences he ignores:
These large currents can only be dealt with by a
direct connection to the building or power panel
ground. The NEC/CEC are very explicit in requiring
this connection, and it has been required for
many years.

More ignored sentences:
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.
... HVAC equipment
2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream
SPDs
... to protect plug-in surge protectors
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.
... to protect all household appliances from the other and typically destructive surge that plug-in protectors do not protect from.

trader_4 is not honest. He only posted here to attack me. Apparently he does same to others. He cherry picks sentences to distort what professionals say. Clearly does not know how electricity works. He never posts claims with numbers - as any honest person would. He does not even know what impedance is. Somehow a near zero protector that destroy itself is protection.. Even his own citations are quoted saying something completely different - such as:

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

An engineer who did this stuff has been saying that repeatedly. Why does trader_4 ignore such sentences. Apparently he likes picking cherries.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:33:52 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:00:28 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Funny I don't recall seeing that stated here even once.

trader_4 again admits to ignoring. The engineer did this stuff. trader_4 obviously did not. How many times was that posted - and ignored?

Electricians are only taught what must connect to what. Electricians are not taught impedance, equipotential, electromagnetic wave theory, circuit theory, semiconductor electronics, or the other relevant electrical concepts that explain why we do surge protection. That point is significant. Electricians are taught about human safety; not about transistor safety.

Some electricians do not upgrade earth ground. They only know what code requires. Would not understand why that same ground wire must be shorter - ie less than 10 feet, no sharp bends, etc. Electricians are not taught how electricity works; are only taught what is required to install it safely. As explained previously and multiple times.

Fewer and better electricians learn why a connection from protector to earth must have no sharp bends and must not be inside a metallic conduit.

How many times was this posted - and he still denies it?

How many times was what posted and I denied it? Are you hallucinating now?



Even his own citations recommend a 'whole house' solution - where earth ground is the most critical component. He still denies it. He even denies a fire threat.

And I never denied that they do. I said from the start that the
correct strategy is a tiered solution. YOU are the one denying that
both the NIST guide and the IEEE guide endorse the use of plug-in
surge protectors. Martzloff:

"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."


And you ignore that in many cases, people may not be able to put
in a whole house surge protector. In a rental house or apartment,
for example. For them, plug-ins, while not being as good as a
tiered solution, do offer some amount of reasonable protection.
Apparently Martzloff, who you cite, agrees.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:11:34 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Again, the IEEE guide to surge protection says you're wrong:

Classic knowledge without one technical reason why ... and not even any numbers. Why no numbers? His entire knowledge comes from those two citations - that he intentionally distorts. We know he must be correct. He says so.

Another discussion where posters have extensive knowledge and experience:
http://lists.contesting.com/archives.../msg00327.html
Lightning and ground systems
The basic scenario is to install a Single Point Ground
System that is installed at the building entry. It
shunts everything to ground before it goes in the
building. If you can keep it outside, then you don't
really have to do much inside.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:25:57 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
... people may not be able to put in a whole house surge
protector. In a rental house or apartment, for example.
For them, plug-ins, while not being as good as a tiered
solution, do offer some amount of reasonable protection.
Apparently Martzloff, who you cite, agrees.

If trader_4 knew anything about surge protection, then he knew electric companies install (rent) a 'whole house' protector behind the meter. That solution was available even 20 years ago. Why does he not know that? His entire knowledge comes from two subjective citations.

Why does he not post numbers? No numbers are in those citations. He cannot post what was not learned. Those citations hint at the utility provided protector - that even apartment dweller can obtain. Easily overlooked when one does not read to learn.

I reference that utility provide protector days ago. He ignored it. He lied this time due to ignorance.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:25:57 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
I said from the start that the correct strategy is a
tiered solution.

Apparently due to tears, trader_4 failed to learn what tiered means. Every layer of protection is defined by the earth ground - defined by what absorbs energy. A 'whole house' solution is the 'secondary' protection layer. As defined by the homeowners single point earth ground.

The 'primary' protection layer should be inspected. Picturs demonstrate what a homeowner should inspect:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Every protection tier is defined by what absorbs that energy - earth ground.. Not defined by protectors that have no earth ground. trader_4 has again taken what is recommended out of context - because he never did this stuff.

The 'art' of protection is earthing. That (and not near zero protectors) defines effective protection. Some facilities that cannot have damage may have no protectors. But every such facility has what is always required for protection - what defines each tier - earth ground.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:02:30 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

I reference that utility provide protector days ago. He ignored it. He lied this time due to ignorance.

Have your written a paper saying the IEEE and NIST is wrong? Was it
peer reviewed or not?

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 06:41:28 +0000 (UTC), gregz
wrote:

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

Please explain. If all connected equipment is on the same UPS where do
you get "more than 1 ground loop"?

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:17:29 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.

Read specification numbers. How many joules does it claim to absorb? Hundreds? A destructive surge is hundreds of thousands of joules. That UPS could not have a smaller protector part. Yes it is a protector. It has just enough joules (near zero) so that advertising and salesmen can claim it has 100% protection. Subjective claims mean nothing. Numbers are esesntial for perspective.

Repeatedly noted is what a protector must connect: a low impedance (ie less than 10 foot) connection to single point earth ground. Does your UPS have that dedicated earthing wire?

From a paper presented in the Power Quality conference in 1990 called "Computer Network Power Protection Problems, Myths and Solutions"
Myth 2: "UPSes Provide Dependable Surge Protection."
Because a UPS costs far more than a surge protector, it
is commonly assumed to provide premium surge protection.
Essentially all micro-computer UPSes, lOOOvA and under,
are a combination of an inexpensive MOV surge suppresser
and a battery back-up power source. The MOV surge
protection is designed to protect the UPS circuitry, and
diverts incoming surges to ground like a common surge
protector. Once on ground, the surge will circumvent the
UPS and couple directly into any computer
datalines.
Another risk exposure with UPSes is the alternative power
path around the battery and inverter. So called standby
UPSes normally provide direct utility power to the
computer, with only the MOVs at the UPS power inlet as
surge protection, while on-line UPSes generally have a
bypass circuit to enable utility power to flow directly
to the load in the event of UPS failure. Both these
circuits provide paths to the protected load for
incoming surges. In the case of the standby UPS, the
path is direct, while for the on-line UPS, the surge
must pass through the transfer switch, but these
switches are often solid state components with modest
tolerance for high energy surges, so they may not
prevent a moderate to sever surge from passing
through them to the protected load.


Does not matter if incoming wires are overhead or underground. A Tech Note demonstrates building surge protection. Even the underground wire needs protection:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/...es/tncr002.pdf
And nowhere did I say they didn't. They are less succeptable to
lightning induced surges - but lightning is not the only game in town.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 10:31:47 AM UTC-5, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. You mentioned a nuclear hardened
communication facility. What exactly is that? Were you like an engineer?

Military communication facilities must be 'hardened' to even withstand nuclear blasts - both the explosive force and electromagnetic transients.

Some telephone exchanges (COs) are even hardened. Their walls were lined in lead.

I stated multiple times that I am an engineer. Defined was a difference between electricians (or technicians) and engineers to further make the difference obvious:
"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."

An electrician typically would not understand basic electrical principles that, for example, are required to understand electrical concepts such as impedance and equipotential. Electricians are taught how to wire stuff - not necessarily why.

Someone getting training as an electrician may not necessarily get electronic theory training but often get training in electrical theory and I can assure you that many people working as electricians know a lot more about electrical and electronic theory than you may think. Most electricians can read, I hope. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Electrical Monster
To get an electrician's licence here in Ontario you need to know a
fair bit. To get your masters, a whole lot more.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:24:01 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:32:37 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
BS. The IEEE guide clearly says so.

trader_4 has no idea what it says. He takes sentences out of context.

Woooah Pilgrim. I take sentences out of context? I've given you
entire paragraphs and more importantly I've given links to the
actual documents at IEEE and NIST, complete with page reference.
Remember that last part.


Many completely different surges are summarized. One that is tiny (typically cause no damage) is connected on a safety ground back to the breaker box. A completely different and destructive transient is why a connection must be to earth AND must be low impedance. Why do so many professionals require that low impedance connection if safety ground wires are sufficient? Because trader_4 misreads. He intentionally ignores some paragraphs to lie.

Multiple Martzloff papers, the AT&T forum, IEEE Red and Emerald Books, and ... how many other professional sources were cited? He ignored them all.


I haven't ignored a single one, it's just that you rarely provide
a link to your alleged sources. Case in point, I asked WTF the "ATT Forum"
even is. It sounds like some newsgroup or similar.



Why do we know he is lying? Where does he even cite one specification number? He doesn't.

What specification number exactly would you like? I did cite numbers
where appropriate, like to show you that the IEEE guide says that the
worst case surge arriving at a panel is ~10KA.


Like an extremist politician, he only makes subjective declarations - with disparaging commentary.


Sigh, I've cited NIST, IEEE. It doesn't get any more credible than that.




He intentionally ignores these from his own citations:
An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical
for the successful operation of an SPD. High surge
currents impinging on a power distribution system
having a relatively high grounding resistance can
create enormous ground potential rises, resulting in
damage. Therefore, an evaluation of the service
entrance grounding system at the time of the SPD
installation is very important.

SPD is his surge protection device.

My surge protection device? Clearly what they are
talking about though is a surge
protector at the panel. And again, everyone could quickly see
WTF you're citing, in context, if you simply provided the page
numbers, etc. But you think by not doing that, you can misrepresent
and get away with it. Not here, not today.



trader_4 knows he can ignore that requirement.

Safety ground is not earth ground. Wire impedance is excessive. From his own citation:
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. ...
The inductance of the wire is the determining factor
rather than the resistance of the wire. The inductance
is a function of the length and the loop area of the
circuit including the SPD.

That inductance obviously creates a high impedance meanning a plug-in protector is all but disconnected from what harmelessly absorbs a surge. Or return to numbers posted eariler. trader_4 know honesty need not provides numbers.


Where are the numbers in all *your* blather in this post so far?
And again, in the above, they are talking about surge protection
at the panel. In the same documents they go have similar sections
that talk about using plug-in surge protectors too. BTW, if that
plug-in is all but cut off from the outside world, how exactly does
the big, bad surge get there? Again, unidirectional impedance in
your alternate universe.



A wall receptacle safety ground will magically earth a tiny 100 amp surge? That wire is less than 0.2 ohms resistance. And maybe 120 ohms impedance. 100 amps times 120 ohms is 12,000 volts. That receptacle (and protector and adjacent appliances) are at less than 12,000 volts. Where is the protection?

If the impedance is all so mighty, how exactly did the 100A arrive
at the receptacle? Again, in WToms world impedance only counts in
one direction when he's talking about the return path to earth. But
the forward path, from the utility pole to the receptacle, that must
have zero impedance.....



How ironic. Figure 8 page 33 shows similar. Because impedance on a safety ground wire is excessive, then a protector could not connect to earth as trader_4 claims. It earths a surge through a nearby TV - 8000 volts destructively. Which one would expect when that 120 ohms impedance exists. Those damning numbers again.


Oh my, now we have "damning numbers". Are they like imaginary ones?
But it's good that you cited the page this time. That way everyone can
quickly go there and see that as part of Figure 8 it says:

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



He also ignored this:
One of the main functions of the service entrance SPD is
to reduce the surge current reaching any downstream
protectors


Please show us where I ever ignored that. I said from the first posts
that a tiered strategy is preferred. Even years ago, I told you that
is *exactly* what they do in a Telco facility. The lines are protected
where they enter the building and they also have protection on the line
cards in the equipment itself. Of course you denied that. I even pulled
up app notes for designers that showed them being used.


Of course ... for many reasons. That downstream (plug-in, point of connection) protector is not designed for a type of surge that typically causes damage. Again, trader_4 has no idea of relevant concepts such as longitudinal and transverse currents. He does not even try to demonstrate basic electrical knowledge.


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

IEEE guide. Page 32, fig 7

It shows a multi-port surge protector being used and states:

"The multiport protector shown at the TV set can greatly decrease
the voltage between the AC ground and the coax cable, preventing
damage to the set."

page 33, fig 8

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



That downstream protector must somehow only absorb hundreds of joules. And then another problem often seen when a 'whole house' protector is not reducing currents reaching downstream protectors ... fire. Another problem that trader_4 repeatedly denied.


Take it up with the engineers at IEEE, NIST, etc.





trader_4 is not honest. He only posted here to attack me.

Yes, that's what I decided to do. Yesterday, I thought, gee, we haven't
heard from loony WTom for a year or so. I should attack him. Funny thing,
though how you made the first couple of posts, before I said anything.
YOU were going back and forth with Clare, who was disagreeing with you.
It was only when your usual level of total BS emerged that I decided
to take you to the woodshed *again* for a right proper whooping.



Apparently he does same to others. He cherry picks sentences to distort what professionals say.

I distort?

Martzloff in his own words:


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."


And you're here trying to tell us that he really said they cause
damage, should never be used, can't work, etc.



Clearly does not know how electricity works. He never posts claims with numbers - as any honest person would.

Interesting argument, given that the only numbers you have given
in the entire post are hypothetical ones, that you just made up:

"a tiny 100 amp surge? That wire is less than 0.2 ohms resistance. And maybe 120 ohms impedance. 100 amps times 120 ohms is 12,000 volts."

Or do you mean numbers like "page 33, Fig 8", which when viewers
look will see that it doesn't say what you claim and that it ends with:

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

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:42:30 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:11:34 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Again, the IEEE guide to surge protection says you're wrong:

Classic knowledge without one technical reason why ... and not even any numbers. Why no numbers? His entire knowledge comes from those two citations - that he intentionally distorts. We know he must be correct. He says so.

Another discussion where posters have extensive knowledge and experience:
http://lists.contesting.com/archives.../msg00327.html
Lightning and ground systems
The basic scenario is to install a Single Point Ground
System that is installed at the building entry. It
shunts everything to ground before it goes in the
building. If you can keep it outside, then you don't
really have to do much inside.

Wow, you've got a real authority there. You complained that
I don't cite spec numbers, and here you are relying on an
unknown guy that says:

" While whole books are written on the topic, here's my 2 cents worth."

BTW, where does he say that multi-port surge protectors can't be
used to protect a TV? Where does he say they cause damage?

What a sound, scientific, engineering approach.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 2:14:48 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:25:57 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
I said from the start that the correct strategy is a
tiered solution.

Apparently due to tears, trader_4 failed to learn what tiered means. Every layer of protection is defined by the earth ground - defined by what absorbs energy.

More nonsense. Part of that tier is the surge protection in the appliance
itself. It's earth ground is back at the panel grounding system, exactly
the same as a plug-in surge protector, which again NIST and IEEE show
as part of the tiered strategy.




A 'whole house' solution is the 'secondary' protection layer. As defined by the homeowners single point earth ground.





The 'primary' protection layer should be inspected. Picturs demonstrate what a homeowner should inspect:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html



OMG, everyone should look at that one. ROFL. Every homeowner should
start inspecting utility poles?




Every protection tier is defined by what absorbs that energy - earth ground.

Really? Then explain to us how the protection inside appliances, which
you acknowledge exists and is effective, can work. That protection is
the last tier. It's earth ground is exactly the same as the earth ground
of a plug-in. That's why I, NIST, IEEE can explain how both types work
and a panel mounted one too.



Not defined by protectors that have no earth ground.

See above.


trader_4 has again taken what is recommended out of context - because he never did this stuff.

The 'art' of protection is earthing. That (and not near zero protectors) defines effective protection. Some facilities that cannot have damage may have no protectors. But every such facility has what is always required for protection - what defines each tier - earth ground.

See above.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 2:02:36 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 1:25:57 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
... people may not be able to put in a whole house surge
protector. In a rental house or apartment, for example.
For them, plug-ins, while not being as good as a tiered
solution, do offer some amount of reasonable protection.
Apparently Martzloff, who you cite, agrees.

If trader_4 knew anything about surge protection, then he knew electric companies install (rent) a 'whole house' protector behind the meter.

If WTom knew anything at all, he's know that what one utility
offers in some places in the country does not mean that all utilities
do it everywhere. Nor does it negate the need for multi-port plug-ins
on devices that need it, eg TV, PC, etc.

That solution was available even 20 years ago. Why does he not know that? His entire knowledge comes from two subjective citations.


Well now, that's a classic. He dismisses the two guides to surge
protection in the home, one written by MArtzloff, who Wtom selectively
cites, the other by 4 engineers who are surge protection experts.
He calls them "subjective citations". NIST? IEEE? really?
And no, my entire knowledge doesn't come from those two guides,
but those two guides are consistent with the rest of my knowledge.


Why does he not post numbers? No numbers are in those citations.

Actually those guides have a lot of numbers in them if you'd
actually read them and learn.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:22:12 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Dual conversion?

What dual conversion does is already inside your electronics. Part of the process of converting 120 VAC to well over 300 volt radio frequency spikes. And the converting that to stable, low voltage DC for semiconductors.

Anything that dual conversion might do is already inside electronics.

Excellent information on surges and surge protection is at:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE (the IEEE is a major
organization of electrical and electronic engineers).
And also:
http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology

(Both have been previously posted.)

The IEEE surge guide is aimed at people with some technical background.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:32:37 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
BS. The IEEE guide clearly says so.

trader_4 has no idea what it says. He takes sentences out of context. Many completely different surges are summarized. One that is tiny (typically cause no damage) is connected on a safety ground back to the breaker box. A completely different and destructive transient is why a connection must be to earth AND must be low impedance. Why do so many professionals require that low impedance connection if safety ground wires are sufficient? Because trader_4 misreads. He intentionally ignores some paragraphs to lie.

Westom ignores anything that conflicts with his very limited views of
protection. He takes sentences out of context to try to make sources say
the opposite of what they really say.

The IEEE surge guide clearly says plug-in protectors are effective. The
only detailed examples of protection use plug-in protectors.
The NIST surge guide also clearly says plugin protectors are effective.

When using a plug-in protector all interconnected equipment needs to be
connected to the same protector. External connections, like coax also
must go through the protector.

Multiple Martzloff papers,

Martzloff is the author of the NIST surge guide, which says plug-in
protectors are effective. Martzloff wrote many published research
papers. All of them that covered on surge protection say that plug-in
protectors are effective. Westom is fond of misquoting one of them to
completely reverse Martzloff's conclusion.

At alt.engineering.electrical westom mischaracterized the views of
Martloff coauthor Arshad Mansoor and provoked a response from an
electrical engineer: "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a
paper by Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of
[multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from
me. LOL." (Multiport protectors have connections for all wiring
including cable and telephone, where appropriate, to wire through.)

IEEE Red and Emerald Books,

The "Emerald Book" ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment") is particularly relevant to
surge protection. It recognizes plug-in protectors as an effective
protection device.

Why do we know he is lying? Where does he even cite one specification number? He doesn't.

Many people have put up specs. Westom just ignores them.


How ironic. Figure 8 page 33 shows similar. Because impedance on a safety ground wire is excessive,arth as trader_4 claims.

In westom's limited view of protection, a protector must directly earth
a surge. The IEEE surge guide explains (starting page 30) plug in
protectors do not work primarily by earthing surges. Earthing occurs
elsewhere. Plug-in protectors work by limiting the voltage from each
wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. The voltage
between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the
protected equipment. It is just one of many things ignored by westom.

It earths a surge through a nearby TV - 8000 volts destructively. Which one would expect when that 120 ohms impedance exists. Those damning numbers again.

Anyone with minimal mental abilities can discover what the IEEE surge
guide says in this example:
- A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- The illustration "shows a very common improper use of multiport
protectors"
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the earthing system at the power
service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE surge guide says
"the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a
multiport [plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO
protection.

It is simply a lie that the plug-in protector damages the second TV


That downstream protector must somehow only absorb hundreds of joules.

Neither service panel or plug-in protectors work by "absorbing" surges.
The way plug-in protectors work is clearly described above (from the
IEEE guide), but it violates westom's apparently religious belief in
earthing.

As for the energy that can make it to a plug-in protector, a Martzloff
research paper looked at that question. Surges on power service wires
were up to the maximum that has any reasonable probability of occurring
(10,000A per wire) and branch circuits were 10m and longer The maximum
energy was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1
joule or less. All listed protectors likely have much higher ratings
than 35J, and protectors with far higher ratings are readily available.
High ratings mean long life.

One of the reasons the energy was so small is that for a strong surge on
power wires, at about 6,000V there is arc-over from busbars to the
enclosure. Since the enclosure (and building ground and neutral) are
connected to the earthing system that dumps most of the surge energy to
earth. This is detailed in Martzloff's paper. (Note that this protection
does not include a service panel protector.)

And then another problem often seen when a 'whole house' protector is not reducing currents reaching downstream protectors ... fire. Another problem that trader_4 repeatedly denied.

Lacking valid technical arguments westom uses scare tactics. Since 1998
UL has required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs. Where is the
massive record of fires from UL listed protectors made since 1998?


More ignored sentences:
There are three requirements of the service entrance
SPD.

Service panel protectors are a real good idea.
But from the NIST surge guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."

Service panel protectors do not, by themselves, prevent high voltages
from developing between power and phone/cable/... wires. The NIST surge
guide suggests most equipment damage is from high voltage between power
and signal wires.


An engineer who did this stuff has been saying that repeatedly. Why does trader_4 ignore such sentences. Apparently he likes picking cherries.

Westom says plug-in protectors do NOT work.
But he has NEVER answered simple questions (cherries that he ignored):
- Why do the only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge
guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are "the
easiest solution"?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "One effective solution is to have
the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why does the NIST surge guide say "Plug-in...The easiest of all for
anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to choose?'"
- Why does the IEEE surge guide says for distant entry points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
- Why does the IEEE surge guide explain how plug-in protectors work -
and it is not primarily by earthing?

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

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

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 12:10:26 -0600, bud-- wrote:

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

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

....great summary. I would never hire westom or take his advice.

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:22:12 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Dual conversion?

What dual conversion does is already inside your electronics. Part of the process of converting 120 VAC to well over 300 volt radio frequency spikes. And the converting that to stable, low voltage DC for semiconductors.

Anything that dual conversion might do is already inside electronics.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:22:12 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Dual conversion?

What dual conversion does is already inside your electronics. Part of the process of converting 120 VAC to well over 300 volt radio frequency spikes. And the converting that to stable, low voltage DC for semiconductors.

Anything that dual conversion might do is already inside electronics.
Yes and no - and depends.
A switch mode power suppliy functions somewhat as you describe, but
does not have as high an isolation voltage. Switch mode power
supplies are more resistant to or accomodating of surges than linear
supplies - to a point. And not all electronics use switch mode power
supplies - even today. The better stuff does - and the better stuff
is less likely to be damaged by minor to intermediate surges and
spikes.

As with anything, multiple layers of protection are generally more
effective than single layers - and cheap standby UPS units are no
better than a plug-in surge protectesd power bar, while dual
conversion units provide REAL protection.

On 10/24/2015 1:06 AM, 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)


I'm not really understanding - at least I don't think I do. Is it like
a whole house power supply that automatically turns on when the power
goes out?

--
Maggie

On 10/24/2015 10:17 AM, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:42:21 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
We now have battery back-up/surge protectors for our computers that's
supposed to protect from those sort of lightning issues.

Read specification numbers. How many joules does it claim to absorb? Hundreds? A destructive surge is hundreds of thousands of joules. That UPS could not have a smaller protector part. Yes it is a protector. It has just enough joules (near zero) so that advertising and salesmen can claim it has 100% protection. Subjective claims mean nothing. Numbers are esesntial for perspective.

I don't really expect the back-up to protect from a major lightning
strike. It's more to protect from power surges like when the wind is
blowing and the power goes off briefly and back on again.


--
Maggie

On 10/24/2015 10:31 AM, westom wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:53:57 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. You mentioned a nuclear hardened
communication facility. What exactly is that? Were you like an engineer?

Military communication facilities must be 'hardened' to even withstand nuclear blasts -
both the explosive force and electromagnetic transients.

Some telephone exchanges (COs) are even hardened. Their walls were lined in lead.


I stated multiple times that I am an engineer.

ahh. I probably missed reading the post where you said that, but I
thought you might be based on the information you talk about in your posts.

Defined was a difference between
electricians (or technicians) and engineers to further make the difference obvious:
"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."

An electrician typically would not understand basic electrical principles that,
for example, are required to understand electrical concepts such as impedance and
equipotential. Electricians are taught how to wire stuff - not necessarily why.


My father-in-law was an electrical engineer.

--
Maggie

On 10/24/2015 12:23 PM, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:32:37 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
BS. The IEEE guide clearly says so.

trader_4 has no idea what it says. He takes sentences out of context. Many completely different surges are summarized. One that is tiny (typically cause no damage) is connected on a safety ground back to the breaker box. A completely different and destructive transient is why a connection must be to earth AND must be low impedance. Why do so many professionals require that low impedance connection if safety ground wires are sufficient? Because trader_4 misreads. He intentionally ignores some paragraphs to lie.

Multiple Martzloff papers, the AT&T forum, IEEE Red and Emerald Books, and ... how many other professional sources were cited? He ignored them all. Why do we know he is lying? Where does he even cite one specification number? He doesn't. Like an extremist politician, he only makes subjective declarations - with disparaging commentary.

He intentionally ignores these from his own citations:
An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical
for the successful operation of an SPD. High surge
currents impinging on a power distribution system
having a relatively high grounding resistance can
create enormous ground potential rises, resulting in
damage. Therefore, an evaluation of the service
entrance grounding system at the time of the SPD
installation is very important.

SPD is his surge protection device. trader_4 knows he can ignore that requirement.

Safety ground is not earth ground. Wire impedance is excessive. From his own citation:
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. ...
The inductance of the wire is the determining factor
rather than the resistance of the wire. The inductance
is a function of the length and the loop area of the
circuit including the SPD.

That inductance obviously creates a high impedance meanning a plug-in protector is all but disconnected from what harmelessly absorbs a surge. Or return to numbers posted eariler. trader_4 know honesty need not provides numbers.

A wall receptacle safety ground will magically earth a tiny 100 amp surge? That wire is less than 0.2 ohms resistance. And maybe 120 ohms impedance. 100 amps times 120 ohms is 12,000 volts. That receptacle (and protector and adjacent appliances) are at less than 12,000 volts. Where is the protection?

How ironic. Figure 8 page 33 shows similar. Because impedance on a safety ground wire is excessive, then a protector could not connect to earth as trader_4 claims. It earths a surge through a nearby TV - 8000 volts destructively. Which one would expect when that 120 ohms impedance exists. Those damning numbers again.

He also ignored this:
One of the main functions of the service entrance SPD is
to reduce the surge current reaching any downstream
protectors

Of course ... for many reasons. That downstream (plug-in, point of connection) protector is not designed for a type of surge that typically causes damage. Again, trader_4 has no idea of relevant concepts such as longitudinal and transverse currents. He does not even try to demonstrate basic electrical knowledge.

That downstream protector must somehow only absorb hundreds of joules. And then another problem often seen when a 'whole house' protector is not reducing currents reaching downstream protectors ... fire. Another problem that trader_4 repeatedly denied.

More sentences he ignores:
These large currents can only be dealt with by a
direct connection to the building or power panel
ground. The NEC/CEC are very explicit in requiring
this connection, and it has been required for
many years.

More ignored sentences:
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.
... HVAC equipment
2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream
SPDs
... to protect plug-in surge protectors
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.
... to protect all household appliances from the other and typically destructive surge that plug-in protectors do not protect from.

trader_4 is not honest. He only posted here to attack me. Apparently he does same to others. He cherry picks sentences to distort what professionals say. Clearly does not know how electricity works. He never posts claims with numbers - as any honest person would. He does not even know what impedance is. Somehow a near zero protector that destroy itself is protection. Even his own citations are quoted saying something completely different - such as:

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

An engineer who did this stuff has been saying that repeatedly. Why does trader_4 ignore such sentences. Apparently he likes picking cherries.


I think I understand what you're saying. You're a 'peel the onion' kind
of person who believes in knowing the 'why' behind the engineering?

--
Maggie

On 10/25/2015 12:34 PM, westom wrote:
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:22:12 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Dual conversion?

What dual conversion does is already inside your electronics. Part of the process of converting 120 VAC to well over 300 volt radio frequency spikes. And the converting that to stable, low voltage DC for semiconductors.

Anything that dual conversion might do is already inside electronics.


This is an interesting topic, for sure, and I'm just dipping my toe in
it when there's a whole ocean of information.

--
Maggie

On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 1:17:41 PM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
Excellent information on surges and surge protection is at:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE (the IEEE is a major
organization of electrical and electronic engineers).
And also:
http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology

(Both have been previously posted.)



Welcome back Bud, haven't seen you in a long time. Helping with the
truth here is always appreciated.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:59:16 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/24/2015 1:06 AM, 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)


I'm not really understanding - at least I don't think I do. Is it like
a whole house power supply that automatically turns on when the power
goes out?
Np, it is a plug-in unit for computer and electronics use - generaly
1--1.5KVA but much larger onea are available, including units that
COULD run a whole house and ones that are hardwired for data center
use

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

+1

:-)

the funny thing about this argument is that both sides are kind of right.


Mark

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:02:16 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
I don't really expect the back-up to protect from a major lightning
strike. It's more to protect from power surges like when the wind is
blowing and the power goes off briefly and back on again.

Those are sags or blackouts - not surges. A UPS would provide temporary power so that a reboot need not happen.

A surge is a high voltage. Power outage or dimming is a low voltage - not a surge.

On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:19:21 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
This is an interesting topic, for sure, and I'm just dipping my toe in
it when there's a whole ocean of information.

Unfortunately, protection is about earthing - not about oceans.