On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:45:56 -0000, westom wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:36:52 PM UTC-5, Diesel wrote:
In part? Er, no. That's the primary reason the protector and
everything else wasn't damaged/destroyed. Your house protector does
the same thing the plugin surge protectors do on a larger level. It
tries to redirect excess current on either/both legs to ground, to
bleed it off as quickly as is possible.

You assumed resistance is relevant. It is not. Impedance is the relevant parameter. Plug-in protectors are all but completely disconnected from earth ground. Plug-in protectors must somehow 'block' or 'absorb' that energy. Plug-in protectors operate completely different from a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

An answer without numbers is best ignored as speculation. That plug-in protector may connect to a breaker box by wire that is well less than 0.2 ohms resistance. That same wire may be 120 ohms impedance. If that plug-in protector tried to earth a tiny 100 amp surge, then 100 amps times 120 ohms impedance means protector and appliances approach 12,000 volts.

Plug-in protectors can make appliance damage easier if not part of a properly earthed 'whole house' solution.

Surge current finds earth destructively via attached or other nearby appliances. An example of why plug-in protectors can even make surge damage easier if a properly earthed 'whole house' solution does not exist.

We saw this even in studies that were even submitted for design review. In one case, a network of powered off computers were 'protected' by plug-in protectors. Those protectors earthed a surge destructively through the entire network. Best connection to earth was incoming via the network and outgoing destructively to earth via modems. Since both phone and TV cable already have effective protection for free as required by codes.

Solution was to replace every damaged semiconductor (which is why we knew every surge current path), remove those plug-in protectors (that have no earth ground), and implement properly earthed 'whole house' protection. Then no future damage occurred (in a location that suffered a high incident of lightning ground strikes).

'Whole house' and plug-in protectors are completely different. A most significant reason why: plug-in protectors have no low impedance (ie less than 3 meter) connection to earth. 'Whole house' protectors are only effective IF that low impedance (as short as possible with no sharp wire bends) connection to earth exists.

I have experience of a room full of computers and similarly fragile expensive equipment receiving 415V instead fo 230V (some building work was ongoing and the electricians ****ed up and confused the new and old wiring colours, resulting in two phases being given to a room instead of a phase and neutral). All the appliances with a surge protector plug survived. The plugs melted, literally, a mess of molten plastic all over the desk. The appliances without them lost at least a couple of bulk capacitors in their power supplies.

--
A brunette, a blonde, and a redhead are all in third grade. Who has the biggest breasts?
The blonde, because she's 18.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:45:56 -0800 (PST), westom
wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:36:52 PM UTC-5, Diesel wrote:
In part? Er, no. That's the primary reason the protector and
everything else wasn't damaged/destroyed. Your house protector does
the same thing the plugin surge protectors do on a larger level. It
tries to redirect excess current on either/both legs to ground, to
bleed it off as quickly as is possible.

You assumed resistance is relevant. It is not. Impedance is the relevant parameter. Plug-in protectors are all but completely disconnected from earth ground. Plug-in protectors must somehow 'block' or 'absorb' that energy. Plug-in protectors operate completely different from a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

That depends TOTALLY on what kind if plug-in protector you have. A 2
stage 3 mode protector protects against common mode AND differential
mode occurrences - usually employing 6 MOVs and 2 Gas Discharge tubes
along with 2 inductors. Each stage has an MOV across the line (phase
to neutral) as well as an MOV from both phase and neutral to theGas
Discharge device to Safety Ground. The two stages are coupled in
series through inductors on both Phase and Neutral.
A simplified (and slightly less effective) unit uses only a single
MOV in each stage for differential protection, (between Phase and
Neutral) and a gas discharge device between neutral and Safety
Ground, to handle common mode events. Again the 2 stahes are connected
through an inductor (which slows the rate if rise)

Better than MOVs, are silicon avalanche diodes, which being unipolar,
requires 2 back to back in place of each MOV. They are more expensive
and faster acting, - with much better clamping voltage
characteristics.

An answer without numbers is best ignored as speculation. That plug-in protector may connect to a breaker box by wire that is well less than 0.2 ohms resistance. That same wire may be 120 ohms impedance. If that plug-in protector tried to earth a tiny 100 amp surge, then 100 amps times 120 ohms impedance means protector and appliances approach 12,000 volts.

The impedence of the wire will vary depending on the frequency and
DvDt of the surge.

Plug-in protectors can make appliance damage easier if not part of a properly earthed 'whole house' solution.

Surge current finds earth destructively via attached or other nearby appliances. An example of why plug-in protectors can even make surge damage easier if a properly earthed 'whole house' solution does not exist.

We saw this even in studies that were even submitted for design review. In one case, a network of powered off computers were 'protected' by plug-in protectors. Those protectors earthed a surge destructively through the entire network. Best connection to earth was incoming via the network and outgoing destructively to earth via modems. Since both phone and TV cable already have effective protection for free as required by codes.

Solution was to replace every damaged semiconductor (which is why we knew every surge current path), remove those plug-in protectors (that have no earth ground), and implement properly earthed 'whole house' protection. Then no future damage occurred (in a location that suffered a high incident of lightning ground strikes).

'Whole house' and plug-in protectors are completely different. A most significant reason why: plug-in protectors have no low impedance (ie less than 3 meter) connection to earth. 'Whole house' protectors are only effective IF that low impedance (as short as possible with no sharp wire bends) connection to earth exists.

Is a Whole House protector a good idea? Most definitely - which is why
I installed on in my new panel. But saying plug in protection is
useless or worse, I say is a bit of Hyperbole.

Of course, a $5 "surge protected" power bar is not going to pritect as
well as one costing 30 or 40 dollars or more (unless you are just
buying a "name".)

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 20:30:08 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:45:56 -0800 (PST), westom
wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:36:52 PM UTC-5, Diesel wrote:
In part? Er, no. That's the primary reason the protector and
everything else wasn't damaged/destroyed. Your house protector does
the same thing the plugin surge protectors do on a larger level. It
tries to redirect excess current on either/both legs to ground, to
bleed it off as quickly as is possible.

You assumed resistance is relevant. It is not. Impedance is the relevant parameter. Plug-in protectors are all but completely disconnected from earth ground. Plug-in protectors must somehow 'block' or 'absorb' that energy. Plug-in protectors operate completely different from a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

That depends TOTALLY on what kind if plug-in protector you have. A 2
stage 3 mode protector protects against common mode AND differential
mode occurrences - usually employing 6 MOVs and 2 Gas Discharge tubes
along with 2 inductors. Each stage has an MOV across the line (phase
to neutral) as well as an MOV from both phase and neutral to theGas
Discharge device to Safety Ground. The two stages are coupled in
series through inductors on both Phase and Neutral.
A simplified (and slightly less effective) unit uses only a single
MOV in each stage for differential protection, (between Phase and
Neutral) and a gas discharge device between neutral and Safety
Ground, to handle common mode events. Again the 2 stahes are connected
through an inductor (which slows the rate if rise)

Jesus Christ, how bad is your incoming power?

--
If I said you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me? -- Monty Python, Episode 25

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:46:00 AM UTC-5, westom wrote:
On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:36:52 PM UTC-5, Diesel wrote:
In part? Er, no. That's the primary reason the protector and
everything else wasn't damaged/destroyed. Your house protector does
the same thing the plugin surge protectors do on a larger level. It
tries to redirect excess current on either/both legs to ground, to
bleed it off as quickly as is possible.

You assumed resistance is relevant. It is not. Impedance is the relevant parameter. Plug-in protectors are all but completely disconnected from earth ground. Plug-in protectors must somehow 'block' or 'absorb' that energy. Plug-in protectors operate completely different from a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

An answer without numbers is best ignored as speculation. That plug-in protector may connect to a breaker box by wire that is well less than 0.2 ohms resistance. That same wire may be 120 ohms impedance. If that plug-in protector tried to earth a tiny 100 amp surge, then 100 amps times 120 ohms impedance means protector and appliances approach 12,000 volts.

The surge sees that same impedance, which is why 12,000 volts never
get to the appliance. You get arc over, most of the energy diverted.




Plug-in protectors can make appliance damage easier if not part of a properly earthed 'whole house' solution.


The IEEE and NIST both say that's BS. Of course that's been presented
here to Tom by several of us, with cites to the relevant documents,
but Tom just drones on and misrepresents what IEEE and NIST engineers
say and show.

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:55:15 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Doesn't make sense to me. ... Or do they assume all areas' usage changes together?

They do not assume. It is. And it has been well proven by generations of experience. Distribution is planned and monitored so that one transformer automatically adjustments to keep voltages within 10%.

Also denying impedance subjectively is disingenuous. Numbers were provide to demonstrate how protection works. Posted was also known and done successfully over 100 years ago.

If protectors were protecting attached appliances, then it was also protecting other appliances on the same circuit (but plugged into other receptacles). Long before making blanket conclusions from speculation, first learn how protectors work. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. In facilities that cannot have damage, plug-in protectors are not used; sometimes aggressively banned. A 'whole house' solution is always implemented..

230 volt protector circuits all but ignore 415 volts. Since its let-through voltage is something above 500 volts. Your conclusion that protectors protected from that fault violates well understood science - and is subjective. Junk science conclusions are created by subjective reasoning. Protector components would all but ignore 415 volts. Learn about let-through voltage. Or read V-I charts in protector datasheets.

Specification numbers for those protectors were not posted and are probably ignored. Another reason why junk science is alive and well. Informed consumers alway cite numbers - especially specification numbers. Denials are best ignored when not tempered by specification numbers.

An IEEE citation (that trader_4 may cite) demonstrates in figure 8 how a plug-in protector earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV.. trader_4 - surges are a current source; not a voltage source as that post assumed. That means voltage will rise as high as necessary so that an incoming current will flow. Then 120 ohms impedance to earth (the outgoing current) can create a voltage approaching 12,000 volts. Or 8000 volts as that IEEE citation demonstrates.

Nobody said plug-in protectors are useless. But those near zero joule devices can make damage easier if not used in conjunction with a 'whole house' solution. As we engineers repeatedly saw - even to a network of powered off computers.

Plug-in protector is considered so dangerous that some cruise ships will confiscate it if found in luggage. It needs protection provided by a properly earth 'whole house' solution.

If a protector was properly designed, then plugs do not melt. An always required circuit breaker (or fuse) disconnects power before a fire threat can exist. Why were protectors defective - therefore melted? Where is the datasheet number that explains a completely unacceptable incident?

What is the difference between a $10 plug-in protector and an $85 one from Monster? Not much. Monster has a long history of identifying scams. Selling an equivalent product (with expensive looking paint) at much higher prices. It is obscenely profitable because so many mistakenly assume a higher price means better quality. Quality and effectiveness is found in specification - that are ignored to make subjective claims and denials.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 00:08:39 -0000, westom wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:55:15 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Doesn't make sense to me. ... Or do they assume all areas' usage changes together?

They do not assume. It is. And it has been well proven by generations of experience. Distribution is planned and monitored so that one transformer automatically adjustments to keep voltages within 10%.

So every town changes at the same time?

Also denying impedance subjectively is disingenuous. Numbers were provide to demonstrate how protection works. Posted was also known and done successfully over 100 years ago.

If protectors were protecting attached appliances, then it was also protecting other appliances on the same circuit (but plugged into other receptacles). Long before making blanket conclusions from speculation, first learn how protectors work. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. In facilities that cannot have damage, plug-in protectors are not used; sometimes aggressively banned. A 'whole house' solution is always implemented.

No idea what you're trying to say, I never mentioned earth.

230 volt protector circuits all but ignore 415 volts. Since its let-through voltage is something above 500 volts. Your conclusion that protectors protected from that fault violates well understood science - and is subjective. Junk science conclusions are created by subjective reasoning. Protector components would all but ignore 415 volts. Learn about let-through voltage. Or read V-I charts in protector datasheets.

I'll stick with my own experience. I saw the result of 415V through a plug in 240V surge protector. It melted it into a gooey mess. That is a fact, and your bull**** doesn't change that one iota.

Specification numbers for those protectors were not posted and are probably ignored. Another reason why junk science is alive and well. Informed consumers alway cite numbers - especially specification numbers. Denials are best ignored when not tempered by specification numbers.

An IEEE citation (that trader_4 may cite) demonstrates in figure 8 how a plug-in protector earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. trader_4 - surges are a current source; not a voltage source as that post assumed. That means voltage will rise as high as necessary so that an incoming current will flow. Then 120 ohms impedance to earth (the outgoing current) can create a voltage approaching 12,000 volts. Or 8000 volts as that IEEE citation demonstrates.

Nobody said plug-in protectors are useless. But those near zero joule devices can make damage easier if not used in conjunction with a 'whole house' solution. As we engineers repeatedly saw - even to a network of powered off computers.

Plug-in protector is considered so dangerous that some cruise ships will confiscate it if found in luggage. It needs protection provided by a properly earth 'whole house' solution.

It protected the items plugged into it. You are wrong, I am right, end of story. It absorbed enough energy to protect the device downstream from it until the breaker tripped.

If a protector was properly designed, then plugs do not melt. An always required circuit breaker (or fuse) disconnects power before a fire threat can exist. Why were protectors defective - therefore melted? Where is the datasheet number that explains a completely unacceptable incident?

It saved the device downstream, it did its job.

What is the difference between a $10 plug-in protector and an $85 one from Monster? Not much. Monster has a long history of identifying scams. Selling an equivalent product (with expensive looking paint) at much higher prices. It is obscenely profitable because so many mistakenly assume a higher price means better quality. Quality and effectiveness is found in specification - that are ignored to make subjective claims and denials.

I believe I paid £5 for each of them. They each saved £1000 equipment.

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
I believe I paid £5 for each of them. They each saved £1000 equipment.

Conclusions based in wild speculation are alive and well. Those £5 protectors do not even claim to protect from potentially destructive transients. But if I feel they do, that alone proves they do?

Same applies to a melted plug. A logical adult then discovers why that unacceptable failure happened to avert future danger. A naive adult says it happened; therefore it must be OK. Experience, not tempered by basic knowledge, is why junk science exists.

Only junk science speculates a £5 protectors did anything useful (other then enrich its manufacturer). Only wild speculation assumes an unsafe design and a resulting melted plug is acceptable.

Completely unknown is even simple stuff such as how transformers adjust so that voltage varies by less than 10%. Denying even simple concepts proves superior knowledge? Hardly.

Others are cautioned about claims and denials without perspective - ie numbers. No numbers is a first indication of what is now being touted as "fake news". Also called junk science reasoning.

A defective design permitted a plug to melt into a gooey mess. That is acceptable only because it happened? Experience without knowledge creates a classic junk science conclusion.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 00:43:10 -0000, westom wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
I believe I paid £5 for each of them. They each saved £1000 equipment.

Conclusions based in wild speculation are alive and well. Those £5 protectors do not even claim to protect from potentially destructive transients. But if I feel they do, that alone proves they do?

I'm basing this on real life experience, not specs. They were subjected to L1 and L2 instead of L1 and neutral. They melted and protected the equipment long enough for the breaker to trip due to overload.

Same applies to a melted plug. A logical adult then discovers why that unacceptable failure happened to avert future danger. A naive adult says it happened; therefore it must be OK. Experience, not tempered by basic knowledge, is why junk science exists.

It protected the expensive equipment.

Only junk science speculates a £5 protectors did anything useful (other then enrich its manufacturer). Only wild speculation assumes an unsafe design and a resulting melted plug is acceptable.

£1000 of equipment still in working order is a success. Replace £5 surge protector, reset breaker, all done.

Completely unknown is even simple stuff such as how transformers adjust so that voltage varies by less than 10%. Denying even simple concepts proves superior knowledge? Hardly.

What has this to do with the current conversation?

Others are cautioned about claims and denials without perspective - ie numbers. No numbers is a first indication of what is now being touted as "fake news". Also called junk science reasoning.

A defective design permitted a plug to melt into a gooey mess. That is acceptable only because it happened? Experience without knowledge creates a classic junk science conclusion.

A melting plug is better than a blown computer.

--
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for this change to take effect.

The Washington Post had some great photos of a house with every
outlet and switch blown out of the walls.

Seems there was a FIOS installer trenching there when it
happened. The WP didn't say, but from the imagery, I suspect
they crossed the 34KV feed to the pictured pad-mount transformer
with its 240/120 output.

It was news because Verizontal refused to pay; saying it
was the contractor's fault not theirs.



--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:41:37 -0000, David Lesher wrote:


The Washington Post had some great photos of a house with every
outlet and switch blown out of the walls.

Seems there was a FIOS installer trenching there when it
happened. The WP didn't say, but from the imagery, I suspect
they crossed the 34KV feed to the pictured pad-mount transformer
with its 240/120 output.

It was news because Verizontal refused to pay; saying it
was the contractor's fault not theirs.

Which it was. But the contractor should have to pay, and Verizon has to pay in the interim, just as if you order something online and it's lost in the post, it's the postal company's fault, but you still claim from the seller, and the seller from the postal company.

--
My wife and I were watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire while we were in bed.
I turned to her and said, "Do you want to have sex?"
"No," she answered.
I then said, "Is that your final answer?"
She didn't even look at me this time, simply saying, "Yes...."
So I said, "Then I'd like to phone a friend."
And that's when the fight started...

On Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:45:25 -0000
"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote:

it's the postal company's fault, but you still claim from the seller,
and the seller from the postal company.

Wrong again.

"James Wilkinson Sword" writes:

It was news because Verizontal refused to pay; saying it
was the contractor's fault not theirs.

Which it was. But the contractor should have to pay, and
Verizon has to pay in the interim, just as if you order
something online and it's lost in the post, it's the postal
company's fault, but you still claim from the seller, and the
seller from the postal company.

Have you ever won an argument with Verizontal?
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

This thread reminds me of a surge protector question I have.

I have a Tripp-LIte surge protector

https://www.tripplite.com/isobar-4-o...es~ISOBAR4220/

It has two "filter banks": one marked (50db) and the other (75db).
What do those number mean? Different levels of surge protection?
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 03/12/2017 07:17 AM, CRNG wrote:
This thread reminds me of a surge protector question I have.

I have a Tripp-LIte surge protector

https://www.tripplite.com/isobar-4-o...es~ISOBAR4220/

It has two "filter banks": one marked (50db) and the other (75db).
What do those number mean? Different levels of surge protection?


The Isobar has internal barriers (isolated filter banks) that prevent line noise from causing A/V distortion, computer lock-ups, data errors and similar problems. Filtering is accomplished by combining toroidal chokes, ferrite rod-core
inductors, HF/VHF capacitors and layers of metal oxide varistors into isolated filter banks that remove EMI/RFI interference.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:13:05 -0400, Mike Rotch
wrote in

On 03/12/2017 07:17 AM, CRNG wrote:
This thread reminds me of a surge protector question I have.

I have a Tripp-LIte surge protector

https://www.tripplite.com/isobar-4-o...es~ISOBAR4220/

It has two "filter banks": one marked (50db) and the other (75db).
What do those number mean? Different levels of surge protection?


The Isobar has internal barriers (isolated filter banks) that prevent line noise from causing A/V distortion, computer lock-ups, data errors and similar problems. Filtering is accomplished by combining toroidal chokes, ferrite rod-core
inductors, HF/VHF capacitors and layers of metal oxide varistors into isolated filter banks that remove EMI/RFI interference.

Oh, thanks very much Mike. I know very little about electronics. BTW,
which provides the greater barrier to line noise: the 75db I presume?
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:13:05 -0400, Mike Rotch
wrote in

On 03/12/2017 07:17 AM, CRNG wrote:
This thread reminds me of a surge protector question I have.

I have a Tripp-LIte surge protector

https://www.tripplite.com/isobar-4-o...es~ISOBAR4220/

It has two "filter banks": one marked (50db) and the other (75db).
What do those number mean? Different levels of surge protection?


The Isobar has internal barriers (isolated filter banks) that prevent line noise from causing A/V distortion, computer lock-ups, data errors and similar problems. Filtering is accomplished by combining toroidal chokes, ferrite rod-core
inductors, HF/VHF capacitors and layers of metal oxide varistors into isolated filter banks that remove EMI/RFI interference.

Oh, thanks very much Mike. I know very little about electronics. BTW,
which provides the greater barrier to line noise: the 75db I presume?

The higher the DB, the greater the barrier to line noise is correct.
With out a refference the db does not give much information. It should
be refferenced to something like milliwatts or millivoltes.

The 25 db of difference is about 300 times as much, but with out a
refference that number does not mean much.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 02:41:57 -0000, David Lesher wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" writes:

It was news because Verizontal refused to pay; saying it
was the contractor's fault not theirs.

Which it was. But the contractor should have to pay, and
Verizon has to pay in the interim, just as if you order
something online and it's lost in the post, it's the postal
company's fault, but you still claim from the seller, and the
seller from the postal company.

Have you ever won an argument with Verizontal?

I'm not in the same country as them.

--
How many potheads does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to hold the bulb against the socket, and the other to smoke up until the room starts spinning.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 06:17:48 -0500, CRNG
wrote in

This thread reminds me of a surge protector question I have.

Thanks again to Mike and Ralph for the comments.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.