MOVs and surge suppressors

[Jamie]

Yes, but that means removing the many reasons why. Answers without
whys are akin to lies. We have a glorious president who demonstrated
same with WMDs.

Who Bush? nah!!...

Show me how we discuss protection without discussing energy? The
example is even Page 42 Figure 8 where 8000 volts was destructively
shunted (energy dissipated in) an adjacent TV. Why? Because the
protector limted voltage between some wires. Also notice important
numbers that are necessary - posted because craigm posts no numbers -
such as 250 to 900 volts - or what craigm calls voltage limiting.

Yes it is longer because it has numbers, defines details that craigm
ignored to obtain a bogus conclusion, and demonstrates the many other
facts that craigm forgot to provide.

How do we know he is posting half facts? He ignores Page 42 Figure
8 - those 8000 volts through an adjacent TV. He pretends there is no
energy to dissipate. He ignores the fact that a surge (voltage
limited or not) still seeks earth ground. And all that is paragraph
one - one some of the reasons why craigm has posted half facts and
erroneous conclusions.

So please, tell me. How do you provide the so many necessary facts
that craigm does not grasp and completely ignores to prove WMDs by
using sound byte reasoning. Why could so many be lied to about WMDs?
Lies are easy in sound bytes. But those of us who saw through the
myths instead read papers and reports far longer. That is a problem
when technical reality confronts soundbyte reasoning. Logic takes
many more paragraphs to explain - and requires numerous reasons why.
Sound byte rationalization simply glosses over facts - and does not
even provide numbers. Yes, if you do not concentrate on the many
points, then you would also believe Saddam had WMDs.

Well, he didn't have them by the time we got there I guess, but who
is to say that they weren't there before? You must remember, we gave
them more than enough time to do just about anything before we went in.

I would appreciate you editing that post - reduce its length without
removing reason after reason why craigm just does not grasp basic
electrical concepts. I would love to see concepts written simpler.
But soundbyte logic cannot explain the 'whys' in reality.

Ok, let me take a shot at it.
"craigm: He said you don't know what the hell you're talking about"

How's that, short enough?

P.S.
The comments above was not directed to any one person from "JAMIE"

 

[craigm]

Yes, but that means removing the many reasons why. Answers without
whys are akin to lies. We have a glorious president who demonstrated
same with WMDs.

Show me how we discuss protection without discussing energy? The
example is even Page 42 Figure 8 where 8000 volts was destructively
shunted (energy dissipated in) an adjacent TV. Why? Because the
protector limted voltage between some wires. Also notice important
numbers that are necessary - posted because craigm posts no numbers -
such as 250 to 900 volts - or what craigm calls voltage limiting.

Yes it is longer because it has numbers, defines details that craigm
ignored to obtain a bogus conclusion, and demonstrates the many other
facts that craigm forgot to provide.

How do we know he is posting half facts? He ignores Page 42 Figure
8 - those 8000 volts through an adjacent TV. He pretends there is no
energy to dissipate. He ignores the fact that a surge (voltage
limited or not) still seeks earth ground. And all that is paragraph
one - one some of the reasons why craigm has posted half facts and
erroneous conclusions.

As with others, you seem to attribute words to me that I didn't write.

The second TV is unprotected because of a poor installation. I am talking
about the successfully protected set.

You should not be trying to draw conclusions from what I don't say.

I'm done with this discussion.

 

[w_tom]

As with others, you seem to attribute words to me that I didn't write.

The second TV is unprotected because of a poor installation. I am talking
about the successfully protected set.

On Page 42 Figure 8, the second TV is damaged because it is
protecting the first TV. Remember, energy in a surge must be
dissipated somewhere. Since the protector only voltage limited (did
not earth the surge), then the surge energy still must be earthed
somewhere. Once inside the building, the surge many find many
destructive paths to earth as even demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8

In another example, the TV and VCR were adjacent. But only the TV
was connected to a plug-in protector. Therefore the homeowner assumed
that protector protected the TV. Reality. Surge protector simply
shunted the surge through the easiest path to earth. That was the
VCR. VCR was damaged because 1) surge was not earthed before entering
the building, and 2) plug-in protector too close to electronics and
too far from earth ground therefore earthed the surge via the VCR.

Just another example of why all other appliances are assumed poorly
installed when using a protector as if it protects the first
appliance.

A surge permitted inside the building must dissipate its energy
somewhere. Just another reason why responsible homeowners do as even
the telco, commercial radio stations, US Air Force, and 911 emergency
response centers do. They enhance building earthing (to meet and
exceed post 1990 code requirements) and they earth one 'whole house'
protector (less than 10 feet) to that earthing.

What defines each layer of protection? A protector? Of course
not. Each protection layer is defined by the earthig electrode. We
have been discussing one properly earthed 'whole house' protector.
That is secondary protection. The homeowner should also inspect his
primary protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Earth ground is the protection. Earthing defines each protection
layer. Earthing is necessary so that surge energy is dissipated with
damage; in earth. How curious. Ben Franklin demonstrated the same
principle in 1752. Ben Franklin also provided protection by shunting
the surge to earth in a path that remained outside the building.

 

[w_tom]

Ok, let me take a shot at it.
"craigm: He said you don't know what the hell you're talking about"
How's that, short enough?

But now it says nothing useful. New quote does not provide two or
seven reasons why he does not know. Misding are numbers and other
essential facts. Therefore that post is akin to an insult.

Unfortunately, when discussing MOVs and surge suppressors, most
people actually assume a protector somehow stops or absorbs what three
miles of sky could not. Obviously not - but that is what many assume
because of how protector are promoted. Therefore their erroneous
belief must be exposed AND what the protector actually does must be
explained. Explaining reality has more than doubled in length.

The soundbyte summary: a protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. But then some mistake a wall receptacle safety ground for
earth ground. So even that myth must be corrected. A protector
without a dedicated earthing wire does not claim and cannot provide
effective protection. But since it sells for so much money, to some,
that price is proof that a protector is also protection.

Your shorter post only attacks a misguided poster who recommends
ineffective protectors as if earthing was never necessary.

 

[bud--]

A surge has energy. If voltage is limited, then where is the energy
dissipated? Do you really believe that 100 joule MOV is dissipating
energy of a direct lightning strike? That energy must be dissipated
somewhere. Where?

w_ has said elsewhere that MOVs do not dissipate much of the energy of a
surge.

100J would be very small for a plug-in suppressor. Very high ratings are
readily available.

The current (and energy dissipation) at a plug-in suppressor is limited
by the impedance of the branch circuit wiring to a surge.

If a surge comes in on power lines, with no service panel suppressor,
there will be arc-over at panels and receptacles at about 6000V.
Arc-over at the service panel dissipates most of a really large surge.
(But service panel suppressors are a good idea.)

In the US, any surge entering on the service neutral is directly earthed
by the neutral-ground bond. Beyond the service, all surges will be
transverse mode.

Go back to Page 42 Figure 8. An MOV limited
voltage. Therefore protector was at 8000 volts on all wires.
Therefore protector earthed that 8000 volts destructively via adjacent
appliances

The lie repeated. The plug-in suppressor protected the TV connected to
it. It lowered the surge voltage at the 2nd TV. The point for the IEEE
and anyone who can think is "to protect TV2, a second multiport
protector located at TV2 is required." The cause of problems is a
‘ground’ wire from the cable entry to the power service that is too
long, which is the case in many houses. The guide says when that happens
"the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a
multiport protector."

A power service suppressor would provide *no* protection to either TV.

A surge shunted from black wire to white and green wire (what you
call voltage limiting) now has many times more paths to destructively
seek earth ground via appliance.

Take a service panel suppressor in a system with a single ground rod.
With a modest 1000A surge current to earth and a very good 10 ohms
resistance to earth there will be 10,000V from the system ground to
‘absolute’ earth. As a rule of thumb, 70% of the voltage drop from a
ground rod is in the first 3 feet from the rod. The voltage from system
ground to earth beyond 3 feet from the rod will be 7,000V or more. That
is most of the house in contact with the earth.

So which one of us designed, built, and tested these solutions as an
engineer for many decades? Not you.

So which 5 electrical engineers wrote the IEEE guide, that was peer
reviewed within the IEEE - not w_.
And which electrical engineer was the surge guru for the NIST, wrote
numerous published papers on surges and surge suppression, and wrote the
NIST guide – not w_.
And who can’t figure out what the IEEE and NIST guides are saying - that
would be w_.

Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

w_ still has no links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Why no links w_? Still can’t find another lunatic that agrees with you?

And still no answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
Couldn't an engineer who designed, built, and tested solutions answer
simple questions???


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to others.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a prevaricator and a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

100 joules is a small protector. But small protector is standard in
so many plug-in UPSes that claim to have protection. It contains near
zero joules. Near zero joules is just enought to claim it does surge
protection. How many notices the near zero joules in so many UPSes
recommended for surge protection? Myths such as this also promote
ineffective plug-in protectors. Bud's job is to keep you confused so
that you don't learn why his protects with their massive profit
margins are so ineffective.

More of Bud's intentional lies. For example, irrelevant is what
happens to surge on neutral wire. The same surge on black wire is
still seeking earth ground. Make no different whether that surge is
on any other wire. That surge is still on black wire and still
seeking earth ground inside a building. Bud knew that. He spins a
lie hoping you had no idea what transverse mode means and only become
confused. He intentionally lies knowing that confusion causes the
reader to ignore technical reality and to only believe popular urban
myths.

Since Bud is promoting for plug-in protector manufacturers, since
those protector claim no protection from the destructive type of
surge, AND since those protectors have no earthing wire, then Bud
must spin myths and intentionally lie to confuse the importance of
earthing. If you forget that earthing provides the protection, then
you will spend tens (maybe 100) times more money per protected
appliance for his ineffective products.

If earthing was not critical; if earthing did not provide protection
- then why do all facilities that cannot suffer surge damage center
their protection system around the most critical component of that
protection 'system'? Single point earth ground. Why do they not
waste money on plug-in protectors that are grossly overpriced and
typically undersized? Bud will say anything to pervert this reality:
protection is earth ground. The protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

Why did the adjacent TV on Page 42 Figure 8 get damaged by a surge
seeking earth ground? According to Bud, surge was not seeking earth
ground because the neutral wire was earthed. Even with an earthed
neutral wire, that surge was permitted inside the building,
distributed to other wires, and therefore found earth ground
destructively via an adjacent TV. Why did the surge seek earth ground
when Bud says it is transverse mode - does not seek earth ground? Who
do we believe? Bud or his citation - Page 42 Figure 8. Since the
surge was not earthed before entering a building.... well Bud claims
everything needs a plug-in protector - meaning $2000 or $4000 of these
ineffective protectors. Massive profits on protectors that don't even
claim to protect from a surge that causes TV damage on Page 42 Figure
8. But that protector is so profitable.

Page 42 Figure 8 - a surge that Bud claims is transverse mode
because neutral wire is earthed, instead, found earth ground
destructive via an adjacent TV. Surge energy must be dissipated
somewhere AND must find a path to earth ground. On Page 42 Figure 8
of Bud's own citation: 8000 volts destructively through the TV.

Bud repeatedly cites Martzloff - but only the parts that promote his
half truths. Meanwhile even Martzloff says plug-in (point of use)
protectors may create appliance damage. A point so important in
Martzloff's 1996 IEEE paper that the point is conclusion number one:

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

What are the destructive surges that Martzloff studies? Its not
transverse mode. They are made irrelevant by protection inside
appliances. Destructive surges seek earth ground. Ground the
typically destructive surge either without damage via a 'whole house'
protector or direct earth ground connection, OR with damage
destructively via household appliances. But again, what does
Martzloff discuss, what is demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8, and what
does Bud avoid discussing? Protection is defined by earthing because
destructive surges seek earth ground.

Bud even lies about what his own citations say. Both say how a
protector might work AND how protectors can even create appliance
damage if the surge is not earthed. Even his own citation says the
protector should really be called a diverter because the effective
protector diverts surges to earth. Did Bud forget to mention that
part again? Yes. His intent is to create confusion - to protect
sales of those grossly overpriced and ineffective plug-in protectors
that high reliability facilities don't even waste money on.

 

[bud--]

More of Bud's intentional lies. For example, irrelevant is what
happens to surge on neutral wire.

And the lie was what???

w_ asked where the surge went. I explained that any of the surge that
enters on the neutral is directly earthed by the neutral-ground-earth
bond. w_ apparently doesn’t want an explanation of where the surge goes.

The same surge on black wire is
still seeking earth ground. Make no different whether that surge is
on any other wire. That surge is still on black wire and still
seeking earth ground inside a building. Bud knew that.

I said that for the surge on the hot wires there is arc-over at the
service panel at about 6000V that dumps most of the surge to earth. w_
has a disability where he can’t understand anything that does not
conform to his quack views.

He intentionally lies knowing that confusion causes the
reader to ignore technical reality and to only believe popular urban
myths.

And the lie was what???

I posted links to reputable sources on plug-in suppressors which I
recommend you read.
w_ only has his own bizarre ideas.

Since Bud is promoting for plug-in protector manufacturers

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.

since those protectors have no earthing wire, then Bud
must spin myths and intentionally lie to confuse the importance of
earthing.

And the lie was what???

Because it does not conform to his quack views, w_ cannot understand
when the IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by
clamping the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common
ground at the suppressor. And that earthing occurs elsewhere.

The protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Why did the adjacent TV on Page 42 Figure 8 get damaged by a surge
seeking earth ground? According to Bud, surge was not seeking earth
ground because the neutral wire was earthed.

Poor w_ has lost the ability to think. Earthing the neutral is not
terribly relevant to the IEEE illustration. The illustration, for the
IEEE and anyone who can think, is that "to protect TV2, a second
multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

The guide says that with the problem shown in the illustration, a
‘ground’ wire from a cable entry block that is too long, "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
protector." Long ground/bond wires are a problem in many homes.

And w_ has still not explained how a service panel suppressor would
protect either TV in the illustration. Perhaps that is because a
service panel suppressor would provide no protection.

Bud repeatedly cites Martzloff - but only the parts that promote his
half truths. Meanwhile even Martzloff says plug-in (point of use)
protectors may create appliance damage. A point so important in
Martzloff's 1996 IEEE paper that the point is conclusion number one:

I don’t repeatedly cite Martzloff.

w_ quotes only what he thinks promotes his half truths. w_ forgets to
mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994 (not 1996) document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors work.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what Martzloff says about them.

What are the destructive surges that Martzloff studies? Its not
transverse mode. They are made irrelevant by protection inside
appliances.

w_ has not explained how a common mode surge gets past the
neutral/ground/earth bond at US service panels.


Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.
Martzloff and the IEEE and NIST guides say plug in suppressors are
effective.

Still no link from another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you get is w_’s quack views based on his religious beliefs.


As always no answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
Why no answers w_?


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to others.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a prevaricator and a purveyor of junk science.

 

[Ken]

A surge has energy. If voltage is limited, then where is
the energy dissipated?

True. The energy has to go elseware.

 

[ehsjr]

True. The energy has to go elseware.

The simple fact is that electrical energy gets
converted to heat energy whenever there is current
through resistance in the path 6the current takes,
in accordance with P = I^2R.

The energy in the case of a point of use protector
is what comes out of the panel and travels through the
specific branch circuit wiring to the MOV, *not* the
entire energy in the source outside of the house
(presumably lightning), or even the entire energy
that gets through the panel and splits among all
the branch crcuits.

What the point of use protector is clamping is the
let through voltage on the specific circuit, and the
MOV doesn't "see" all of it while it is clamping - some
is dropped in the wiring.

The energy is dissipated in the path from the panel to
the MOV protector, the MOV itself, and the path from the
MOV back to the panel. Electrical energy is converted
to heat, in accordance with ohm's law:

-- I-->
| |----PathR(t)----+
S |P | |
U--|A | MOVr
R--|N | |
G |E | |
E |L |----PathR(b)----+
| |
--

The energy will go to three places and be
converted to heat in each place:

Some energy will be converted to heat in the
top path as follows: I^2 * PathR(t) In conjunction
with the energy going to heat, there will be a
voltage drop in the path of V = I * PathR(t)

Some will be converted to heat in the MOV
as follows: I^2 * MOVr In conjunction with the energy
going to heat, there will be a voltage drop in the
MOV of V = I * MOVr

Some will be converted to heat in the
bottom path as follows: I^2 * PathR(b)
In conjunction with the energy going to heat, there
will be a voltage drop in the path of V = I * PathR(b)

The voltage across the MOV will be clamped by the
MOV to some value much lower than the let through
voltage, until the MOV dies or the let through
voltage drops below the level that keeps the MOV
in the low resistance state. 340 volts is a typical
clamping voltage spec.

Ed

 

[w_tom]

True. The energy has to go elseware.

Some are claiming an MOV protector without earth ground is
sufficient protection. Somehow all that surge energy will be absorbed
by wires. And that current will stop seeking what it wants to connect
to - earth ground. Effective protectors are sold on science. The
energy is diverted to earth 1) so that the electrical path is via
things not damaged, and 2) so that the energy is absorbed in earth.
Wires and the MOV do not absorb all that energy as ehsjr claims.

In effective protection, little energy is absorbed by wires and
MOV. Massive energy is absorbed in earth. Only with proper earthing
is a little protector is so massively effective. That energy has to
go elsewhere. Those promoting protectors without earthing simply
pretend that energy it trivial or does not exist.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Earth is
where surge energy must be absorbed - not inside an MOV protector as
ehsjr so often claims.

 

[bud--]

I gave a short answer where the energy goes in my post dated 9-4.

Some are claiming an MOV protector without earth ground is
sufficient protection.

Among those that claim a plug-in suppressor is effective are the IEEE
and NIST .

Somehow all that surge energy will be absorbed

by wires. And that current will stop seeking what it wants to connect
to - earth ground.

The IEEE guide explains that earthing does not occur primarily through a
plug-in suppressor. The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere in
the circuit.

Wires and the MOV do not absorb all that energy as ehsjr claims.

Complete mischaracterization of what Ed said in his last post.

Those promoting protectors without earthing simply
pretend that energy it trivial or does not exist.

Those who say plug-in suppressors are effective include the IEEE and
NIST. But poor w__ can’t figure out how they work because thry biolate
his religious belief in earthing.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug in suppressors are effective.
Read the sources.

w_ has still never found another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

And w_ has still not answered simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.
- Why did Martzloff sayin his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to others - like Ed.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a prevaricator and a purveyor of junk science.

 

[Ken]

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug in suppressors are effective.

Yes, but only if they are connected in the right way.
They have to route the energy to ground.

 

[bud--]

Yes, but only if they are connected in the right way.
They have to route the energy to ground.

Have you read the illustration in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.
The illustration has a surge coming in on a CATV cable. The 'ground'
wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power service ground is 30
feet - far too long (not a "single point ground"). As a consequence, the
CATV wiring is at 10,000V with respect to the power wiring.

The illustration shows that protection is provided by connecting the
cable wire sheath (ground) the power ground wire at a plug–in suppressor
and clamping the voltage on all the wires to the common ground at the
suppressor. The voltages on the wires going to the TV are safe for the TV.

The illustration explains that the “vast majority” of the earthing of
the surge occurs through the 'ground' wire from the CATV entry block to
the power service, as the NEC intended. Not much of the surge is earthed
through the plug-in suppressor. But the suppressor protects the TV
connected to it.

(In this case, a electric service panel surge protector will not help.
The guide says in this case "the only effective way of protecting the
equipment is to use a multiport protector".)

-----------------
If a surge enters through the power service without a service panel
suppressor, the surge energy entering on the neutral is earthed directly
by the neutral-‘ground’ bond required in US service panels. For a large
surge, the surge energy entering on the hot wires will cause arc-over
from hot to ‘ground’ at the service panel (and receptacles) at about
6000V. Arc–over will dump most of the remaining surge energy to the
earth and limits the voltage to something under 6000V. A service panel
surge suppressor would be preferable. (In any case, a large surge
current to earth will raise the voltage of the system ‘ground’ above
‘absolute ground’ by thousands of volts).

A plug--in suppressor in this case will still work by clamping the
voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. Because the
impedance of the branch circuit wires is high, not much of the surge
energy left after arc-over will reach the plug-in suppressor (unless
the branch circuit wiring to the panel is very short). Because a surge
is a very fast event the inductance of the wire is much more important
than the resistance.