Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is notavailable?

[w_tom]

Manufacturers make untrue claims (marketing).

Which is what Bud does.

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is in a
guide from the IEEE at:http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversio...

And a guide from the US NIST at:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
....
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
(limiting) the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common
ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by
earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs
elsewhere.

Both Bud's citations say why plug-in protectors don't provide surge
protection AND why such protectors can even contribute to appliance
damage. Bud promotes surge protectors and will not admit why he
promotes them. Bud will post incessantly to make everything nasty.
Bud is not an honest person. Bud will be challenged to provide a
single plug-in spec that claims protection. Bud cannot because no plug-
in protector manufacturer will claim, in numbers, to provide surge
protection.

Bud's first citation from the NIST says what a surge protector does.
It does not stop, absorb, or make surge energy miraculously disappear
by clamping. Surge energy must be dissipated harmless in earth:

What these protective devices do is neither suppress
nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground,
where it can do no harm.

Bud says

Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing

The NIST says surges must be earthed. From Bud's NIST citation:

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.

NIST says the protector must be earthed AND a protector is "useless
if grounding is not done properly." Bud lies about what NIST says.
But then Bud is here to protect profits.

Bud's second citation demonstrates what happens when a protector is
too far from earth ground AND too close to appliances. Bud says read
starting page 40. So on Page 42 Figure 8. A surge is earthed, 8000
volts destructively, through the adjacent TV. Protector too far from
earth and too close to appliances.

Surge protection has always been about earthing before the surge can
enter a building. Why will Bud post myths and half truths? According
to Bud, you must buy $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protector - spend tens
or 100 times more money. Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10
parts. Sell it for $10 in the grocery store. Or sell it with a
fancier paint for $150 in Circuit City, Best Buy, or Radio Shack. See
that profit margin? Bud will turn this discussion nasty. Profit
margins are at risk.

Every responsible source says surge energy must be dissipated
harmlessly in earth. No short connection to earth means mythical
surge protection. Bud claims his plug-in protector will stop what
three miles of sky could not. Bud claims his plug-in protector will
make surge energy disappear. Ok. Then Bud can provide a numerical
specification that claims such protection. After 600 requests - he
gets paid for doing this - Bud cannot provide what no manufacturer
will claim. No plug-in protector manufacturer claims protection from
a type of surge that typically creates damage. Bud never provides
that spec because that specification does not exist. Bud hopes you
will believe his half truths. Bud's citations even show how plug-in
protectors contribute to appliance damage - 8000 volts earthed
destructively through an adjacent TV – Page 42 Figure 8.


Effective surge protection is earthing - as the NIST citation says
repeatedly. Even your cable company will recommend removing that plug-
in protector. A 'magic box' protector does not claim to provide
protection. Cable is earthed where it enters the building. Plug-in
protector does what - clamp both surges and TV signals to nothing? If
it stops surges, it also stops TV signals. Worse, Page 42 Figure 8 -
it can even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent
TV. Protection is about earthing before a surge can enter a
building.

Bud spins a myth. Even I would sell plug-in protectors to people so
naive as to learn technology from a sales promoter. Take a $3 power
strip. Add some 10 cent parts. Sell it for $25 or $150 to the
naive. Even responsible companies will sell these. But only
responsible companies sell the protectors that actually contribute to
protection. That is not who Bud promotes for. Who makes the
effective protectors? Square D, GE, Siemens, Keison, Leviton, Cutler-
Hammer, Intermatic - etc. Who only sells scam plug-in protectors?
Belkin. Monster Cable. Equivalent circuit in a $150 Monster Cable
product is also in a $10 protector in the grocery store. Profit
margins that Bud must protect.

Bud's citations show what a plug-in protector might do AND why plug-
in protector can even contribute to appliance damage. Bud's citations
all state that the protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Bud ineffective protectors promoted by Bud don't have
earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection. How will
Bud protect those profit margins? He will post insults.

Do you determine a good product by tone? Or do you look at facts.
Every citation posted even by Bud says the protector must have that
earthing connection. Bud's citations even show how appliances get
damaged when the protector is too close to electronics and too far
from earth ground - Page 42 Figure 8. Bud will say anything to
confuse reality on that page. Bud also hopes you don't read page 19
of 24 in his NIST citation:

The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Bud says grounding is not necessary when NIST says otherwise. Bud
says clamping to nothing will make surge energy disappear. Bud must
say anything to protect obscene profit margins.

 

[w_tom]

Oh dear. I don't see any answers there. I do, however, see a product
advertisement. No matter, let's try again!! I'll use numbers this time,
to make it easier. It will seem like school.

Why are you being an ass? Technical answers were provided in both
'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times.
Apparently you are being funny by not reading them. Articles are
entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".
What is discussed? Earthing. Impedance. Engineering formulas are
provided. Things that provide surge protection. Not discussed are
plug-in protectors and that UPS.

Where is product advertisement? You asked for advanced technical
numbers. Formulas are there. No product advertisement was provided.
Anoher fool's joke.

Polyphaser does not sell earth ground. Few if any Polyphaser
products are discussed in Polyphaser application notes. Those
legendary app notes discuss what provides protection - earthing.
Since Charlie says, "I do, however, see product advertisement", then
Charlie did not read - just posted to be funny.

Things that provide surge protection have a dedicated and short
connection to earth ground. Scams promoted by Bud take a $3 power
strip, add some 10 cent parts, and sell for an obscene $25 or $150.
Protectors that don't even claim to provide protection have product
names such as APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable. No earth
ground means, well, what did the NIST say?

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.

What does every responsible source state as necessary for surge
protection? That connection to earth ground. For a low impedance
connection, an earth ground wire from the protector is typically 'less
than 10 feet' - no sharp bends, no splices, etc. Damage averted only
when surge energy is dissipated harmlessly in earth. Plug-in
protectors or a UPS will somehow make that surge energy disappear?
Myth. Charlie thinks he is funny by inventing 16 gauge AC electric
romex. Charlie made a joke. Oh dear. Its not even funny.

 

[w_tom]

A UPS will give backup power in case of blackout. It will also give
filtering of noise, and protection against overvoltage and undervoltage
conditions. The quality varies. The best type to get is a pure sine
wave output with continuous inverter action. That is, no switching of
power occurs at blackout time. That might sound confusing; no worries,
do some research, and don't cheap out.
...
Read the excellent reply by "bud--" where he gives the links to IEEE and
NIST documentation. Good reading.

Charlie forgets to mention some facts. A UPS that does filtering
costs $500 and higher. The computer grade UPS typically outputs,
well, 120 volts from this UPS is two 200 volts sine waves with a spike
of up to 270 volts between those sine waves. That is noise filtering
and protection from overvoltage? Of course not. Computer grade UPS
manufacturer quietly warn of damage to small electric motors if
powered by this UPS.

Of course, computer power supplies are so resilient as to make that
poor UPS power irrelevant. Where is the noise filtering and
protection from overvoltages? Inside the computer’s power supply.

Meanwhile, Bud's citations state why the UPS and power strips do not
even claim to provide surge protection:

Page 42 Figure 8 - an adjacent TV destroyed when the adjacent
protector earthed 8000 volts through that TV. Damage because the
protector was too far from earth ground and too close to the
appliance.

From the NIST:

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.

Bud says a protector needs no earthing. Bud says clamping to nothing
is protection. Charlie agrees. Says so much about Charlie's reading
ability.

The number of sources that require earthing for surge protection is
long. For example, the IEEE Standard 141 says:

In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.

What provides the protection? Earth ground.

IEEE Standard 142 entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' says:

Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

IEEE Standard 1100 (the Emerald Book) says:

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

How curious. This IEEE Standard repeats what is required for surge
protection. A single point earth ground. Where is the plug-in
protector recommended? Not found in IEEE Standard - where IEEE
recommendations are located.

Let's see. What does Sun Microsystems demand for protection of their
servers?

Section 6.4.7 Lightning Protection:
Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can be diverted.
The plans for the data center should be thoroughly reviewed to
identify any paths for surge entry into the data center. Surge
arrestors can be designed into the system to help mitigate the
potential for lightning damage within the data center. These
should divert the power of the surge by providing a path to
ground for the surge energy.

Bud's citations contradict his and Charlie's statements. Numerous
IEEE Standards also define earthing as the surge protection. Sun
Microsystem's Planning Guide for the Server Room also says protectors
must divert (clamp) surges to earth ground.

US Air Force says demand only protectors that connect at the service
entrance to earth ground. From QST July 2002 "Lightning Protection
for the

Amateur Radio Station":
The purpose of the ground connection is to take the
energy arriving on the antenna feed line cables and
control lines (and to a lesser extent on the power and
telephone lines) and give it a path back to the earth, our
energy sink. The impedance of the ground connection
should be low so the energy prefers this path and is
dispersed harmlessly. To achieve a low impedance the
ground connection needs to be short (distance),
straight, and wide.
...
The goal is to make the ground path leading away from
the SPGP more desirable than any other path.

Just another source, not selling plug-in protectors, that defines
protection in terms of earth ground and low impedance connections to
that earth ground. Just another responsible source that contradicts
Bud and Charlie Siegrist.

Dr Kenneth Schneider:

As previously mentioned, the connection to earth ground can
not be over emphasized. ...
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to
ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning
protection device grounds the incoming signal connection
point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting the
threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance (impedance)
to ground where it is absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of
switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow
dissipation of the surge energy. The switch, of course,
dominates the design and the cost. Yet, the need for a good
ground connection can not be emphasized enough.
Computer equipment has been damaged by lightning, not
because of the absence of a protection device, but because
inadequate attention was paid to grounding the device properly.

Must the OP rewire his two wire receptacles to three wire as Bud and
Charlie recommend? Of course not. Every responsible source says
protection is about earthing where the surge might enter the
building. Upgraded earthing at the breaker box and one 'whole house'
protector provides massive protection .... that provides "only
99.5-99.9% protection". How much protection does a plug-in protector
or UPS claim to provide? None. Rewire the house for 3 wire
receptacles so that ineffective plug-in protectors can be used? The
effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance AND
requires no household rewiring. The 'whole house' protector for about
$1 per protected appliance actually provides protection per NIST,
IEEE, US Air Force, Sun Microsystem, ARRL (QST Magazine), Polyphaser,
and so many other sources from even 100 years ago.

Only a fool would buy Charlie's UPS for surge protection. Charlie -
where is that UPS numeric spec that lists each type of surge and
protection from that surge. Oh. Like Bud, you cannot find that
spec. Why should anyone believe you. Because you are a nice guy?
Nice guys with that big toothy smile also make untrue claims
(marketing).

Charlie would also have the OP rewire his building with 3 wire
receptacles - as if that provides surge protection. The superior
surge protection also means no such rewiring AND spending tens or 100
times less money.

 

[[email protected]]

A UPS will give backup power in case of blackout. It will also give
filtering of noise, and protection against overvoltage and undervoltage
conditions. The quality varies. The best type to get is a pure sine
wave output with continuous inverter action. That is, no switching of
power occurs at blackout time. That might sound confusing; no worries,
do some research, and don't cheap out.

If I were to install a UPS, I would install a service-entry surge
protection, to protect the UPS!

Read the excellent reply by "bud--" where he gives the links to IEEE and
NIST documentation. Good reading.

Would it be feasible to use two UPS devices and switch between them?

For example,

charge UPS #1
disconnect UPS #1 from mains
power computer from UPS #1 while charging UPS #2
when UPS #1 battery is dead, disconnect UPS #2 from mains and switch
to UPS #2...

I'm guessing it takes longer to charge than discharge but adding more
UPS could take care of that...

Would the constant cycling of the batteries make this impractical?

 

[Baron]

bud-- Inscribed thus:

.
Geez - NB and Baron are psychic...

I wish I was as sure picking lottery numbers ! ;-)

 

[bud--]

Both Bud's citations say why plug-in protectors don't provide surge
protection

..
Embarrassing questions never answered by w_:
- 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"?
..

Bud is not an honest person.

..
w_ is not an intelligent person.
Poor w_ is not pleased when someone challenges his drivel.
..

Bud says

..
The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing.
..

The NIST says surges must be earthed. From Bud's NIST citation:

..
What does the NIST guide really say?
Plug-in suppressors are the "easiest solution".
..

Bud's second citation demonstrates what happens when a protector is
too far from earth ground AND too close to appliances. Bud says read
starting page 40. So on Page 42 Figure 8. A surge is earthed, 8000
volts destructively, through the adjacent TV. Protector too far from
earth and too close to appliances.

..
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Poor w_ thinks the plug-in suppressor at TV1 damages TV2. Without the
plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the
suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service 'ground' is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in]protector."
..

Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10
parts.

..
The last plug-in suppressor I bought (about $25) had 1 MOV that was
1475J, 75,000A and 2 that were 590J 30,000A.
Provide a source for a 75,000A/1475J MOV for $0.10.
..

Bud claims his plug-in protector will stop what
three miles of sky could not. Bud claims his plug-in protector will
make surge energy disappear.

..
w_ is fond of inventing opinions and attributing them to others.
..

After 600 requests - he
gets paid for doing this - Bud cannot provide what no manufacturer
will claim.

..
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.

Specs have been provided often (like above), but the village idiot just
ignores them.
..

No earth ground means no effective protection.

..
w_ is not just your normal troll. He is a religious fanatic.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work.

Unfortunately for w_, the IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work
primarily by CLAMPING not earthing.

Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups for
"surge" to paste his religious tract to convert the heathens.
Unfortunately this newsgroup must be mostly pagans.

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

Never 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 guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

 

[w_tom]

w_ is not just your normal troll. He is a religious fanatic.

Bud is my troll who follows me everywhere posting insults. Insult
are his only proof. His citations even show how a plug-in protector
causes damage. It is his job to promote obscenely profitable plug-in
protectors. Bud cannot even admit who he represents.

Let's see what UL approved protectors might do. Bud's standard
response: these UL approved protectors are not UL approved. Nonsense.
UL1449 standard have existed since 28 Aug 1985. Recent scary pictures
from fire departments, fire marshal, etc occur when a plug-in
protector (that meets UL standards) is constructed to maximize
profits; not provide protection:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

A protector that clamps to nothing must absorb surge energy. Where
do you put this protector? On a carpet behind furniture? Adjacent to
a desktop of papers? That energy must be dissipated someplace. If
not in earth, then were does surge energy get dissipated? Scary
pictures demonstrate another problem with plug-in protectors.

Problem made worse when the occupant only has two wire receptacles.
Bud still recommends his plug-in protectors on two wire receptacles.
After all, a plug-in protector works by clamping to nothing.

From Bud's citations, his protector without earthing may even earth
8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud does not even dispute this. Every responsible source says a
protector for typically destructive surges must have that short (ie
'less than 10 foot') connection to earth. As Bud's citation bluntly
says:

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

Bud says his protector works, instead, by clamping to nothing. It has
no earth ground. The OP also has no earth ground. Bud says that is
not a problem. Bud's protectors work by clamping to nothing.
Somehow surge energy gets stopped, absorbed, or magically disappears?
Bud pretends that surge energy does not exist - profits are at risk.

Every responsible source says protection is achieved by earthing.
Bud says a protector works by 'clamping to nothing' which means it can
work on two wire receptacles. Meanwhile, other responsible sources
show a plug-in protector without 'whole house' protection means a plug-
in protector can even contribute to appliance damage - 8000 volts
through the adjacent TV - or scary pictures.

OP asked about surge protection when only two wire receptacles
exist. Only solution is a same solution done wherever damage is not
an option. One 'whole house' protector with breaker box earthing
upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code
requirements. Installing a UPS or power strip that 'clamps to
nothing' will somehow stop or absorb that surge energy? Hardly.

Every responsible source (including those cited by Bud) state that
earthing - not a protector - provides that protection. Plug-in
protectors (built to maximize profits) can even create scary
pictures. What kind of protection is that? Protectors recommended by
Bud.

 

[w_tom]

Would it be feasible to use two UPS devices and switch between them?
...
I'm guessing it takes longer to charge than discharge but adding more
UPS could take care of that...
Would the constant cycling of the batteries make this impractical?

The typical UPS takes maybe 8 hours to charge the battery - and
discharge in 10 minutes. Furthermore batteries in a computer grade
UPS are not constructed for numerous discharge cycles. Batteries and
recharge circuits will be the cheapest possible - to provide backup
power maybe once a year.

What are you trying to accomplish? Surge protection or brownout
protection? A computer power supply must keep a computer working even
when voltage drops so low that incandescent bulbs are at less than 40%
intensity. A standard even required in Intel specs. Does your
computer power supply meet minimal standards? How often do lights dim
to less than 40%?

If surges are so severe as to operate electronics disconnected from
the grid, then a superior solution (that costs less money) is to
operate from a Honda generator. But again, what is the problem? What
are you trying to solve?

 

[bud--]

Bud cannot even admit who he represents.

..
It is the usual w_ post - mischaracterizing sources and attempting to
discredit opponents.
..

Let's see what UL approved protectors might do. Bud's standard
response: these UL approved protectors are not UL approved. Nonsense.
UL1449 standard have existed since 28 Aug 1985.

..
From w_'s hanford link below:
"Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL 1449, *2nd Edition*, Standard For
Safety For Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, now requires thermal
protection in power strips. This protection is provided by a thermal
fuse located next to the MOV."

From w_'s Gaston Co. link:
"More modern surge suppressors are manufactured with a Thermal Cut Out
mounted near, or in contact with, the MOV that is intended shut the unit
down overheating occurs [sic]."

If w_ had any knowledge of the field he would know UL 1449, *2nd Ed* was
effective in 1998.

w_ is too stupid to know the difference between a creation date and a
revision date.

And none of the links even says a damaged suppressor was UL listed.
..

Recent

,
Provide dates.
,

scary pictures
from fire departments, fire marshal, etc occur when a plug-in
protector (that meets UL standards) is constructed to maximize
profits; not provide protection:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

..
w_ refuses to understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs. That was
1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there
is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has
been in effect since 1998.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

--------------
If there is no service panel suppressor and a large surge comes in on
power wires, at about 6,000V there will be arc-over from the hot busses
to the panel enclosure/ground/earth (which is also connected to the
neutral in US services). After initiation, the arc voltage is hundreds
of volts. There is also arc-over in receptacles at about 6,000V

Because of arc-over and branch circuit impedance to surges, surprisingly
little surge current can reach a plug-in suppressor. That means
surprisingly little energy can reach a plug-in suppressor.

(A technical paper from the author of the NIST guide is available if
anyone is interested.)

---------------
The author of the NIST guide has written "In Fact, the major cause of
TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than
an unusually large surge." Overvoltage is much longer duration than a
surge. Causes could be an open neutral or primary wire dropping on
120/240V secondary wires.
..

A protector that clamps to nothing must absorb surge energy.

..
If poor w_ could think he could figure out how plug-in suppressors work.
They do not protect by absorbing energy. As explained above, they absorb
surprisingly little energy unless they are very near the service panel.
..

Bud still recommends his plug-in protectors on two wire receptacles.

..
If poor w_ could read he could find out what I really said. (But that
might ruin the rant.)
..

Every responsible source (including those cited by Bud) state that
earthing - not a protector - provides that protection.

..
It is the religious belief in earthing.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The
IEEE guide explains how they work for anyone who is able to think.

Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing 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 guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?

 

[w_tom]

You seem to think that someone who can't be afforded whole-house
protection, for whatever reason, should shun the use of plug-in
protectors, even though they have been unequivocally proven to be
effective. Of course, there have been some failures, but that's in
the nature of the game and buying high quality metal-housed units with
high-capacity transient voltage suppressors will go a long way toward
preventing failures.

So where is this proof? Current is coming down any or all AC wires
is still seeking earth ground. Clamping the hot and neutral together
only means the same voltage is on both wires - still clamped to
nothing - surge still seeking earth ground. That is the point of Page
42 Figure 8. The protector clamped all those wires together.
Therefore the surge was clamped to earth 8000 volts destructively via
the adjacent TV.

Clamping two wires together does not dissipate the energy. Surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere. A clamp to something connects
that surge energy to what dissipates that surge energy. Clamping the
hot and neutral wire means surge energy remains on both wires -
unclamped - still seeking earth ground.

If plug-in protectors work as you have assumed, then where is this
manufacturer numeric spec that lists each type of surge and protection
from that surge? No such spec exists because clamping to nothing does
not protect from the typically destructive surge. Clamping all wires
together means the surge was clamped to nothing, OR (Page 42 Figure
8) the adjacent TV did the clamping - 8000 volts destructively.

Its called a protector. So you *know* it protects from all types of
surges? With or without plug-in protectors, a properly earthed 'whole
house' protector is required - which is why telcos don't waste money
on plug-in protectors.

 

[bud--]

Clamping two wires together does not dissipate the energy. Surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere.

..
Repeating:
"The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere."

In the explanation in the IEEE guide "the vast majority of the incoming
lightning surge current flows through the" cable entry ground wire, "and
exits the house via the grounding electrode, as the NEC/CEC writers
intended."
..

Clamping the
hot and neutral wire means surge energy remains on both wires -
unclamped - still seeking earth ground.

..
Repeating:
"If a power line surge creates a 1,000A current to earth with a very
good resistance to earth of 10 ohms, the power system ground rises
10,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. Much of the effectiveness of
surge protection is keeping the power and phone and cable wires at the
same potential with all of them floating up to 10,000V."

w_ is a fan of ground rods. In general 70% of the voltage drop is in the
first 3 feet from the ground rod. From the ground references (and
wiring)inside the building to earth over 3 feet from the rod there will
be at least 7,000V. A service panel suppressor leaves surge energy still
seeking earth ground.
..

If plug-in protectors work as you have assumed, then where is this
manufacturer numeric spec that lists each type of surge and protection
from that surge?

..
Neither of the SquareD "whole house" suppressors has numbers for "each
type of surge." SquareD does not even talk about different kinds of
surges. How could your "responsible" company omit this critical information.

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ invents issues.

Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible
combinations and all possible surge modes.

In addition, the N-G bond in US services converts common mode power line
surges to transverse mode surges.

--------
Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you
w_???

Still never answered - embarrassing 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 guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?
Where are your answers w_???

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

 

[w_tom]

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ invents issues.

Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible
combinations and all possiblesurgemodes.

How does a plug-in protector cause computer damage? Surge on Hot
wire gets 'clamped' to Ground wire and Neutral wire. What happened in
so many locations when this happened? Surge energy remains clamped to
nothing. That energy enters a computer via green ground wire, passes
through motherboard and modem, then obtains earth via phone line or
cable. Just one of so many paths destructively through the computer
because the plug-in protector was too far from earth and too close to
the computer. So many more destructive paths because of the H-G, H-
N, and N-G connections.

What does a plug-in protector do? Gives the surge more destructive
paths through the adjacent computer or any other appliance in that
room. Page 42 Figure 8.

Bud lies. The plug-in protector is a complete protection system?
So the protector also makes that claim? Of course not. It only
protects H-G N-G H-N for a type of surge that typically does not cause
damage. Where does it claim to protect from typcially destructive
surges? Better is to make no numeric spec claims. Better is to hire
sales promoters to promote myths. Why does Bud never provide a
protection spec for his 'complete protection system'? Even the
manufacturer will not claim that protection.

What do responsible sources all say? A protector is simply a
connecting device to protection. Protection is defined by the quality
of and connection to earthing. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - where that surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly.

Even a well respected researcher notes the problem with plug-in
(point of connection) protectors in his IEEE paper. Martzloff says:

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.

Martzloff's primary conclusion. Bud will spin some details into a
perverted fact. But researchers always note what provides surge
protection - earth ground. Why do telcos and other high reliability
facilities not use Bud's protectors? They only have 100 years
experience connected to overhead wires all over town. Telcos use
properly earthed 'whole house' protectors and do not use ineffective
plug-in protectors. They need protection - not myths from a sales
promoter.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Where does
surge energy get dissipated? Either energy gets clamped to nothing
(which means energy may find earth ground destructively via
appliances) OR surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly in earth.
Where damage is not acceptable, effective protectors clamp to earth.
One 'whole house' protector for everything, or $2000 or $3000 of plug-
in protectors that don't even claim to provide that protection. Your
choice. Reality or more insults from Bud.

 

[w_tom]

---
No, it's seeking Neutral.
...
Now let's say that a lightning strike somewhere on the HV side of the
supply has caused a 1000V spike to occur across the half of the
secondary to which our appliance is connected.

All of a sudden, then, the voltage across the appliance will rise to
1000V, the current through it will rise to:
...
Clearly, at this point the appliance is in serious trouble

The solution?

A plug-in protector interposed between the load and the mains, like
this:
...
Normally, the MOV will appear to be an open circuit and will draw no
current, but what will happen when the lightning strikes is that when
the voltage across the MOV rises to 150 volts, it will break down and
allow current to flow through itself until such time as the mains
voltage falls below 150V, when it will once appear to be an open
circuit.

The reason for its use in the circuit is to prevent the voltage across
the appliance from rising to more than 150 volts, therefore providing
it with some modicum of protection against transients as can be seen
by considering that with 150V across the appliance it will be drawing
1.25 amperes and dissipating 187.5 watts, a far cry from 8.3 amperes
and 8300 watts.

Which is all nice and good except that ohms resistance has near zero
relevance. As every responsible citation notes, *impedance* is the
critical factor. Whereas that neutral or ground wire via 50 feet of
romex may be less than 0.2 ohms, that same wire is maybe 120 ohms
impedance. Why? Wire is too long, too many splices, too many sharp
bends, etc.

A 100 amp surges is trivial. A trivial 100 amp surge 'clamped' by
the protector puts that protector at something less than 12,000
volts. That 12,000 volts puts all nearby TVs at risk as demonstrated
on Page 42 Figure 8. John – even 150 volts between H-N still means
all wires are at something less than 12,000 volts to earth.

Both 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering
Times discuss this in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients" published 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007:

The length of the cable increases the impedance dramatically.

Why does that responsible sources discuss impedance? Because surge
protection requires low *impedance* earthing which a plug-in protector
does not provide.

In many cases a protector should be bonded to a ground plane, ...
Often a ground grid is used to provide low impedance across the
ground plane. To intercept lightning, overhead grounded shield
wires can also be bonded to this ground plane. ...
Lightning is essentially a current impulse which is trying to return to earth.
... grounding here refers to the connection to the soil, which (hopefully)
will be the preferred path of lightning current.

Ground is what lightning seeks - earth ground. That protector must
be bonded *low-impedance* to earth ground. Not low resistance as John
Fields discuss. Low impedance which is why an earth ground for surge
protection is typically 'less than 10 feet'.

Why do responsible sources discuss sharp bends, splices, and wire
inside metallic conduit? None of these increase resistance - what
John discusses. All drastically increase impedance. *Low impedance*
(not resistance) defines effective protection.

Why do telcos do extensive construction so that every incoming wire
is only feet from earth ground AND up to 50 meters separated from
electronics? Again, resistance is irrelevant. Low impedance to earth
ground defines surge protection. Therefore wires must be shorter to
earth. High impedance (that up to 50 meter separation) further
supplements protection.

Plug-in protector clamping hot wire to neutral wire leaves that
surge energy still seeking earth ground. Why does the protector for
TV1 cause damage to the nearby TV2 – Page 42 Figure 8? TV1 was
protected because it was plugged into a surge protector? No.
Protector clamped surge energy to nothing. So surge energy was
shunted (connected) to earth destructively via TV2. It could have
been anything. But TV2 was the victim of that plug-in protector and
its unearthed surge. What kind of protection is that? A protector
that clamps surge energy to nothing.

More reasons why plug-in protectors are not effective: if a plug-in
protector was clamping surge energy into earth, then that 50 foot
ground (or neutral) wire bundled with all other wires has only induced
surges on other wires. Another reason why plug-in protectors can even
contribute to surge damage.

http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct strikes.
The belief that there's no protection from direct strike damage is
*myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
low ohm DC path.

John Fields discusses a low ohm DC path - resistance. But surge
protection (from every responsible source) is about a low *impedance*
path. What does a plug-in protector not have? A low *impedance*
connection to earth and numeric specs that even claim to provide that
protection.

One 'whole house' protector means protection for about $1 per
household appliance. Plug-in protectors cost 25 or 150 times more and
do not even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. To
provide protection, wire impedance is not relevant. But every
responsible source defines protection in terms of impedance. John
Fields post is based on something irrelevant - wire resistance.

 

[Jamie]

Which is all nice and good except that ohms resistance has near zero
relevance. As every responsible citation notes, *impedance* is the
critical factor. Whereas that neutral or ground wire via 50 feet of
romex may be less than 0.2 ohms, that same wire is maybe 120 ohms
impedance. Why? Wire is too long, too many splices, too many sharp
bends, etc.

A 100 amp surges is trivial. A trivial 100 amp surge 'clamped' by
the protector puts that protector at something less than 12,000
volts. That 12,000 volts puts all nearby TVs at risk as demonstrated
on Page 42 Figure 8. John – even 150 volts between H-N still means
all wires are at something less than 12,000 volts to earth.

Both 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering
Times discuss this in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients" published 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007:



Why does that responsible sources discuss impedance? Because surge
protection requires low *impedance* earthing which a plug-in protector
does not provide.



Ground is what lightning seeks - earth ground. That protector must
be bonded *low-impedance* to earth ground. Not low resistance as John
Fields discuss. Low impedance which is why an earth ground for surge
protection is typically 'less than 10 feet'.

Why do responsible sources discuss sharp bends, splices, and wire
inside metallic conduit? None of these increase resistance - what
John discusses. All drastically increase impedance. *Low impedance*
(not resistance) defines effective protection.

Why do telcos do extensive construction so that every incoming wire
is only feet from earth ground AND up to 50 meters separated from
electronics? Again, resistance is irrelevant. Low impedance to earth
ground defines surge protection. Therefore wires must be shorter to
earth. High impedance (that up to 50 meter separation) further
supplements protection.

Plug-in protector clamping hot wire to neutral wire leaves that
surge energy still seeking earth ground. Why does the protector for
TV1 cause damage to the nearby TV2 – Page 42 Figure 8? TV1 was
protected because it was plugged into a surge protector? No.
Protector clamped surge energy to nothing. So surge energy was
shunted (connected) to earth destructively via TV2. It could have
been anything. But TV2 was the victim of that plug-in protector and
its unearthed surge. What kind of protection is that? A protector
that clamps surge energy to nothing.

More reasons why plug-in protectors are not effective: if a plug-in
protector was clamping surge energy into earth, then that 50 foot
ground (or neutral) wire bundled with all other wires has only induced
surges on other wires. Another reason why plug-in protectors can even
contribute to surge damage.

http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html



John Fields discusses a low ohm DC path - resistance. But surge
protection (from every responsible source) is about a low *impedance*
path. What does a plug-in protector not have? A low *impedance*
connection to earth and numeric specs that even claim to provide that
protection.

One 'whole house' protector means protection for about $1 per
household appliance. Plug-in protectors cost 25 or 150 times more and
do not even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. To
provide protection, wire impedance is not relevant. But every
responsible source defines protection in terms of impedance. John
Fields post is based on something irrelevant - wire resistance.

More drivel..
Please get off the soap!.

How many times must you recite the chapter out of what ever book it is
you're doing so. If I didn't know any better, I swear you're the author
of this book and trying to push it off on the rest of us.

I work in an industrial environment where we get hit on an average of
3 times each year from storms. It destroys a lot of stuff how ever,
there is very little in real life events where we work that supports
your theory as you have so edited.

We have equipment all over that uses MOV's or devices like it that
does not depend on ground as part of the device protection. The ground
is simply there connected to the chassis and cabinets to protect the
user/operator. If it happens to be on a GFCI. It could trip the circuit
but in that case, the device attached still gets whacked normally.


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[w_tom]

I work in an industrial environment where we get hit on an average of
3 times each year from storms. It destroys a lot of stuff how ever,
there is very little in real life events where we work that supports
your theory as you have so edited.

We have equipment all over that uses MOV's or devices like it that
does not depend on ground as part of the device protection. The ground
is simply there connected to the chassis and cabinets to protect the
user/operator. If it happens to be on a GFCI. It could trip the circuit
but in that case, the device attached still gets whacked normally.

You use unearthed MOVs everywhere. You suffer damage from lightning
3 times a year. You call that protection? More likely, MOVs without
earth ground are earthing surges destructively through equipment.
Effective protection means direct strikes (25 annually atop the Empire
State Building) and no damage.

If MOVs are properly installed (with the required short connection
to single point earth ground), then damage occurs zero times every
year. Damage three times a year is unacceptably excessive. Your
industrial environment "does not depend on ground as part of the
device protection." Therefore damage is acceptable? Average
locations may suffer a serious surge once every seven years without
damage, if protectors are properly earthed.

Jamie demonstrates why the US Air Force demands:

15.1. Entering or exiting metallic power, intrusion detection,
communication antenna, and instrumentation lines must have
surge protection sized for lightning surges to reduce transient
voltages to a harmless level. Install the surge protection as
soon as practical where the conductor enters the interior of
the facility. Devices commonly used for this include metal
oxide varistors, gas tube arresters, and transzorbs.

Lightning damage three times a year is so unacceptable as to be
traceable to human failure. Properly installed 'whole house'
protector with a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth is why:
http://www.tschmidt.com/writings/HomeLAN2008.htm

6.10 Secondary Lightning Protection
The key to minimizing lightning damage is bonding all services
together with a low impedance path to earth ground. All
conductors entering the building must be bonded together
and equipped with lightning protection. This minimizes
difference in potential during transient conditions.

6.10.1 Electrical
Whole house surge protector should be used to protect the
electrical system. Remember goal is to direct excessive energy
into a low impedance ground and to provide low impedance
bonding of all metallic conductors. ...
Lightning protectors do not absorb energy they divert it. If the
diversion path is not low impedance a substantial voltage
difference is created. This is what kills electronic gear.

Routine is a building connected to overhead wires all over town to
suffer maybe 100 surges during every storm and no damage. A protector
is only as effective as its earth ground. Jamie's protectors are not
earthed. Therefore surge damage is acceptable?

 

[bud--]

Bud lies.

..
Bud repeat the "lies" of the IEEE and NIST.
..

Even a well respected researcher notes the problem with plug-in
(point of connection) protectors in his IEEE paper. Martzloff says:

..
w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994 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 1994 multiport suppressors were rather new.

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

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

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

If w_ could read, 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. The voltage between wires going to the
protected equipment is safe for the equipment. Plug-in suppressors do
not work primarily by earthing. The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere.

Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you
w_???

Still never answered - embarrassing 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 guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?
Where are your answers w_???

 

[w_tom]

You still don't get it. Voltage between line and neutral -
especially if using a plug-in protector - is near zero. Typically
well below what internal protection in any appliance does. Common
mode voltage (whether plug-in protector exists or not) is the 8000
volts destructively across an adjacent appliance - Page 42 Figure 8.
How many sources must note this because you get it? Lightning seeks
earth ground. It finds a path to earth destructively via the
appliance. What is that thousands of volts? While you discuss trivial
hundred voltage surges that harm nothing, those thousands of volts is
common mode - it seeks earth ground.

Characteristic impedance is not relevant. Why do you confuse
characteristic impedance with wire impedance that is completely
different? Current is in the same direction on one or all wires -
seeking earth ground. Therefore characteristic impedance obviously is
not relevant. Why do responsible sources that discuss surge
protection not discuss characteristic impedance? It obviously is not
relevant.

An MOV shunting (connecting, conducting) 150 volts between two wires
means either the MOV conducts no current (because a voltage is same on
both wires) or the MOV simply provides a surge more paths to find
earth ground destructively via the adjacent appliance. An MOV at the
appliance is for surges that typically don't overwhelm protection
already inside all appliances.

Why do telcos not use your MOV solution? It does not provide
protection from surges that typically cause damage AND that surge it
would protect from what is also made irrelevant by the 'whole house'
protector. Yes, the 'whole house' protector is protection from all
types of surges. A more expensive plug-in protector protects from one
type of surge that typically causes no damage.

Telcos are not into enriching plug-in protector manufacturers.
Telcos need protection that works. That means a properly earthed
'whole house' protector on each incoming wire and no plug-in
protectors. At what point do you claim to be smarter than telcos all
over the world?

Sigh - you still don't get it. There is no responsible source
citing what you have been posting. The Electrical Engineering Times
articles are entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients". Why do they discuss earthing and completely ignore plug-
in protectors? Look at the title. EE Times does not promote popular
myths. Why do those articles discuss wire impedance (which is not
characteristic impedance)? Because effective protectors require low
impedance earthing. How many sources need be cited before John Fields
finally grasps the critical importance of low impedance earthing?
Even three IEEE Standards note what provides protection from typically
destructive surges - earth ground.

John Fields posts:

protection of the appliance ... isn't the common mode
voltage on the cable conductors, it's the voltage
between line and neutral.

No John. Voltage between line and neutral is near zero as a
destructive surge seeks earth ground (ie 8000 volts destructively) on
one or all of those wires. To promote grossly undersized and
obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors, then what is hyped to the
naive? Some irrelevant hot to neutral voltage - made irrelevant by
protection already inside appliances and also by a 'whole house'
protector.

Protection has always been about voltage between each wire and
earth. That protection also make voltage between hot and neutral
trivial. Effective surge protection means protection inside every
appliance is not overwhelmed. Protection not found in and not even
claimed by numeric specs for $25 or $150 plug-in protectors.

John - this is not rocket science. This was implemented even 100
years ago. After 100 years they are dumb and you know better? You
still don't get it. Why do telcos not do what you have posted?
Effective protection is required. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. Same principle even applies to lightning rods.
Why do you have a problem with such well proven principles?

John Fields posted:

Look at the subject line to learn why all your prattle about earth
ground is immaterial.

And view an earliest reply. Solution is not three wire
receptacles. Solution is earthing the breaker box to meet and exceed
post 1990 electrical code and one 'whole house' protector. Less
expensive than plug-in protectors. No three wire receptacles
required. Protection that is tens or 100 times less money per
protected appliance. Why do you promote plug-in protectors when even
the OP describes what plug-in protectors cannot be used on - two wire
receptacles? Why do you keep posting what is completely irrelevant to
the OP's question?

Orange County FL was suffering damage to emergency response
facilities. How was surge damage eliminated? Plug-in protectors? Of
course not. Emergency facilities needed protection - not a myth.
Orange county fixed the reason for surge damage - earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

A surge protector is only as effective as its earthing. How many
sources say this? Instead John Fields even confuses wire impedance
with characteristic impedance. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - where surge energy must be harmlessly dissipated.
Why do you repeat the myth promoted by retail salesmen? Where
effective protection is installed, protectors make that short (ie
'less than 10 foot') connection to a single point earth ground. Where
scams are promoted, well, how is that protector (that you promote)
acceptable on the OP's two wire receptacles? It's not.

 

[Jamie]

You still don't get it. Voltage between line and neutral -
especially if using a plug-in protector - is near zero. Typically
well below what internal protection in any appliance does. Common
mode voltage (whether plug-in protector exists or not) is the 8000
volts destructively across an adjacent appliance - Page 42 Figure 8.
How many sources must note this because you get it? Lightning seeks
earth ground. It finds a path to earth destructively via the
appliance. What is that thousands of volts? While you discuss trivial
hundred voltage surges that harm nothing, those thousands of volts is
common mode - it seeks earth ground.

Characteristic impedance is not relevant. Why do you confuse
characteristic impedance with wire impedance that is completely
different? Current is in the same direction on one or all wires -
seeking earth ground. Therefore characteristic impedance obviously is
not relevant. Why do responsible sources that discuss surge
protection not discuss characteristic impedance? It obviously is not
relevant.

An MOV shunting (connecting, conducting) 150 volts between two wires
means either the MOV conducts no current (because a voltage is same on
both wires) or the MOV simply provides a surge more paths to find
earth ground destructively via the adjacent appliance. An MOV at the
appliance is for surges that typically don't overwhelm protection
already inside all appliances.

Why do telcos not use your MOV solution? It does not provide
protection from surges that typically cause damage AND that surge it
would protect from what is also made irrelevant by the 'whole house'
protector. Yes, the 'whole house' protector is protection from all
types of surges. A more expensive plug-in protector protects from one
type of surge that typically causes no damage.

Telcos are not into enriching plug-in protector manufacturers.
Telcos need protection that works. That means a properly earthed
'whole house' protector on each incoming wire and no plug-in
protectors. At what point do you claim to be smarter than telcos all
over the world?

Sigh - you still don't get it. There is no responsible source
citing what you have been posting. The Electrical Engineering Times
articles are entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients". Why do they discuss earthing and completely ignore plug-
in protectors? Look at the title. EE Times does not promote popular
myths. Why do those articles discuss wire impedance (which is not
characteristic impedance)? Because effective protectors require low
impedance earthing. How many sources need be cited before John Fields
finally grasps the critical importance of low impedance earthing?
Even three IEEE Standards note what provides protection from typically
destructive surges - earth ground.

John Fields posts:



No John. Voltage between line and neutral is near zero as a
destructive surge seeks earth ground (ie 8000 volts destructively) on
one or all of those wires. To promote grossly undersized and
obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors, then what is hyped to the
naive? Some irrelevant hot to neutral voltage - made irrelevant by
protection already inside appliances and also by a 'whole house'
protector.

Protection has always been about voltage between each wire and
earth. That protection also make voltage between hot and neutral
trivial. Effective surge protection means protection inside every
appliance is not overwhelmed. Protection not found in and not even
claimed by numeric specs for $25 or $150 plug-in protectors.

John - this is not rocket science. This was implemented even 100
years ago. After 100 years they are dumb and you know better? You
still don't get it. Why do telcos not do what you have posted?
Effective protection is required. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. Same principle even applies to lightning rods.
Why do you have a problem with such well proven principles?

John Fields posted:


And view an earliest reply. Solution is not three wire
receptacles. Solution is earthing the breaker box to meet and exceed
post 1990 electrical code and one 'whole house' protector. Less
expensive than plug-in protectors. No three wire receptacles
required. Protection that is tens or 100 times less money per
protected appliance. Why do you promote plug-in protectors when even
the OP describes what plug-in protectors cannot be used on - two wire
receptacles? Why do you keep posting what is completely irrelevant to
the OP's question?

Orange County FL was suffering damage to emergency response
facilities. How was surge damage eliminated? Plug-in protectors? Of
course not. Emergency facilities needed protection - not a myth.
Orange county fixed the reason for surge damage - earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

A surge protector is only as effective as its earthing. How many
sources say this? Instead John Fields even confuses wire impedance
with characteristic impedance. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - where surge energy must be harmlessly dissipated.
Why do you repeat the myth promoted by retail salesmen? Where
effective protection is installed, protectors make that short (ie
'less than 10 foot') connection to a single point earth ground. Where
scams are promoted, well, how is that protector (that you promote)
acceptable on the OP's two wire receptacles? It's not.

Ok, Another to add to my black list.


--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

"Daily Thought:

SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT
THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[w_tom]

Nothing of any consequence.

So John, where is any professional citation that says characteristic
impedance is relevant? Nothing.

Where is this professional citation that says common mode surges -
what lightning creates - are not typically destructive surges?
Nothing.

Where is this professional citation that says a hot to neutral surge
is not eliminated (reduced) by that same one 'whole house' protector?
Nothing.

Why is a peer reviewed front page article in a highly regarded
electrical engineering publication not relevant? Its title:
"Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". John
somehow knows industry professionals are wrong?

You have even confused characteristic impedance with wire impedance.
Why do you ignore wire impedance and discuss irrelevant wire
resistance? Your denials are based only in insults?

Why does every telco install 'whole house' protectors and not waste
money on plug-in protectors? For better protection, why do telcos
locate protectors distant from electronics - up to 50 meters? For
better protection, why do telcos install even better earthing and
connect 'whole house' protectors as short as practicable to that
earthing? John says telcos are also loony?

And where is that plug-in protector spec that claims protection?
Oh. No plug-in protector will list protection from each type of
surge. But you know that plug-in protector is effective?

Where does John Fields post a solution for the OP whose building
only has two wire receptacles? You provide no useful answers.

OP's solution is simple, more effective, and less expensive than
plug-in protectors. Similar to a solution implemented by all telcos,
commercial broadcasters, rocket launch facilities, and military
bases. A 'whole house' protector with breaker box earthing is
upgraded to post 1990 National Electrical Code standards. Complete
surge protection installed for about $1 per protected appliance.

Why does John Fields recommend using three wire power strip
protectors on two wire receptacles? How do John's insults prove
science or assist the OP? John even denies lightning creates common
mode surges. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as
noted by numerous above and responsible sources. Meanwhile, the OP
cannot use plug-in protectors. His best solution is the standard
solution used everywhere when surge damage is not acceptable.

 

[w_tom]

Well, I see from your outburst that you've been confounded by my
excellent ASCII art schematics and my lucid explanation of why and how
two-wire plug-in TVS-basedsurgesuppressors can be used to good
advantage in premises without (or with unused) earth grounding.
That is, after all, the topic as indicated by the subject line.

Every responsible source says the grounding must exist. No surge
protection stops or absorbs the common mode surge - surge that
typically causes appliance damage. As Bud's NIST states:

... 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.

*Diverting*. Your ASCII protector has all but no earth ground.
Excessive wire impedance. Nothing to divert to. Protector is the same
problem demonstrated in Bud's other citation. Page 42 Figure 8 - a
protector too far from earth ground and too close to appliances
therefore leaves surge energy earthed 8000 volts destructivley through
an adjacent TV.

No way around what a protector does. Either it stops (absorbs)
surge energy OR is diverts (shunts, connects, clamps) that surge
energy into earth. A destructive surge will increase voltage. as
necessary, to connect to earth - Page 42 Figure 8. Stopping
(absorbing) surge energy is not effective protection. Your ASCII
circuit protector with excessive wire impedance must absorb all surge
energy (impossible) or divert a surge destructively via household
appliances - Page 42 Figure 8.

The OP need not rewire the house. But no way around what provides
effective protection. As every responsible source notes, that service
entrance earth ground must exist for the same reasons earthing exists
in every telco facility. One 'whole house' protector means everything
is protected. Protection that your ASCII circuit does not provide.

As even Sun Microsystems notes in their Planning guide for Sun
Server room:

Section 6.4.7 Lightning Protection:
Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can be diverted.
The plans for the data center should be thoroughly reviewed
to identify any paths for surge entry into the data center.
Surge arrestors can be designed into the system to help
mitigate the potential for lightning damage within the data
center. These should divert the power of the surge by providing
a path to ground for the surge energy.

Who should the OP believe? John Fields? Or Sun Microsystems ...
and the IEEE, NIST, US Air Force, QST (the ARRL), Dr Kenneth
Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times, Schmidt Consulting,
Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a station engineer
from WXIA-TV, ...

Effective protectors work by earthing surges. That wall receptacle
wire is woefully too long, has sharp bends, had splices, is bundled
with other wires, etc. Each point conspires to make it only a safety
ground (equipment ground) and not earth ground.

Even Martzloff describes what would happen with your ASCII circuit:

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.

An MOV protects by becoming more conductive? What happens when a
surge protector has even higher joules numbers? Then the protector
absorbs even less surge energy. A better protector (higher joules)
absorbs less surge energy - what is desirable. MOVs don't protect by
absorbing surges - which is why a Wikipedia citation on joules was
irrelevant. MOVs protect by diverting energy elsewhere - earth
ground.

John do you really believe a hundred joules in a UPS or power strip
will stop (by absorbing) lightning energy? Do you know how tiny 200
joules is? Where is protection from a 200 joule MOV?

Both wire and MOVs absorb some energy while shunted massive energy
elsewhere. A 200 joule protector is expected to shunt maybe 2000 or
50,000 joules into earth (20,000 amps) Whereas the MOV may absorb 200
joules, earth must dissipate thousands of joules. Better protectors
work more like wires - shunting more energy while dissipating even
less - or why your Wikipedia citation makes no sense.

What is wrong with ASCII diagrams? First, you promote wire
resistance that is irrelevant. Your 14 AWG wire at 0.15 ohms
resistance is also something like 130 ohms impedance. (Not
characteristic impedance with is something completely different).

Second, your 1000 volts surge at a transformer is made completely
irrelevant by protection required inside all computers. All computers
are required to withstand 1000 volt transients. Many have internal
protection that means even higher voltages without damage. That
transformer surge voltage will be lower at appliances. No problem.
Electronics routinely withstand 600 volt transients without damage - a
standard from 1970.

Third, surges are current events - not voltage. Tiny surges are 100
amps (not 8 amps). Serious surges are thousands of amps. Effective
'whole house' protectors must earth tens of thousands of amps so that
voltages at all appliances remain below 600 volts. Again, why high
reliable facilities use 'whole house' protectors and don't use your
point of use protection.

Fourth, any attempt to stop or absorb surge energy means voltages
rise as much as necessary to blow through that blockage. Voltage will
rise as high as necessary to connect that current to earth. Lightning
makes the most non-conductive material (air) into miles of conductor.
Nothing stops (absorbs) the typically destructive surge that seeks
earth ground. Effective protection *diverts* surges to earth on non-
destructive paths. Which does your ASCII protector do? Divert that
energy into earth or absorb it. Which one? Surge protection is about
earthing (diverting) before surge energy can enter a building.

Fifth, if a designer who used MOVs, then you would have accurate
numbers. One milliamp through your 150v MOV puts it at just above
200 volts. Your 150 volt MOV does not conduct at 150 volts. Serious
surge currents start with the 150 volt MOV at around 300 volts. John
Fields - your ASCII circuit description violates every number in this
paragraph. No MOV is installed to keep appliance voltage at 150 volts
as you posted. You would know that had you designed protectors and
studied V-I charts for MOVs. You don't even know how MOVs work.

Sixth - clamping the hot and neutral wire means surge energy remains
on both wires - unclamped - still seeking earth ground. Assume all 8
amps of a near zero (non-destructive) surge used the neutral wire to
obtain earth: that protector is at maybe 540 volts (not 150 volts).
A nondestructive surge because an 8 amp surge is too trivial to
overwhelm protection typically in all electronics. Your circuit only
works for a type of surge that typically does not do damage AND fails
- provides no protection - for the type of surge that does cause
appliance damage. A destructive surge means energy remains on that
hot and neutral wire, still seeking earth ground, and maybe finding
earth 8000 volts destructively via some appliance. Page 42 Figure 8
demonstrates this.

Your ASCII circuit protects from a surge (measured in voltage) that
is not destructive, has trivial energy, made further irrelevant by one
'whole house' protector, and that does not represent what effective
protectors are designed to eliminate. Destructive surges are not a
trivial 8 amps and defined by wire resistance. Your 150v MOV does not
clamp at 150 volts. Your example even demonstrates no knowledge of
MOV datasheets. Numerous additional technical problems with your
ASCII circuit. John - you don't even know the V-I curves for MOVs.
You have never designed this stuff let alone test it.

Why do telcos not use your ASCII circuit? Telcos have the exact
same surge problem AND must never suffer surge damage. Same problem
and solution applies to every high reliability facility. To avoid how
surge protection works, you simply pretend telcos don't suffer
surges? Nonsense. I designed this stuff that was tested by direct
lightning strikes. You clearly never did design (as demonstrated by
your 150v MOV conducting current at 150 volts). Protection now
required in every home is how ham radio operators did it 80 years ago.
Your protection circuit violated what hams knew 80 years ago.

What you should have known. That 150v MOV has 150 volts across it
when conducting how much current? Less than 1 milliamp. Why did you
not know what every protector designer would know? Take a 200 joule
MOV (V151CA32). What is that 150v MOV voltage when conducting an 8
amp surge? About 360 volts (not 150 volts). Why am I quoting from a
V-I chart that you clearly never read? How do you know what that MOV
does when you assume rather than read datasheets? That is the point.
Worse. John - you still discuss what is irrelevant (wire resistance)
and ignore what responsible engineering sources discuss (wire
impedance).

How critical is wire impedance? Manufacturers even define wire
impedance in that two inch MOV lead for test purposes. Where a tester
connects to an MOV's leads changes MOV electrical responses. Why?
Wire impedance (not wire resistance) is important even in manufacturer
application notes. To post accurately, John would also know this:

Varistors: Ideal Solution to Surge Protection by Bruno van Beneden
In conventional leaded devices, the inductance of the lead
can slow the fast action of the varistor to the extent that
protection is negated.

Just another source that demonstrates wire impedance - not resistance
- for protection. Even inductance in MOV wire leads can degrade
protection because impedance (not resistance) is the critical
parameter.

John, your ASCII circuit cites wire resistance which is irrelevant
(as so many sources state) AND demonstrates design ignorance of how
MOVs work. You don't even know MOV voltage when conducting a trivial
8 amps. Glaring, obvious, and unacceptable mistakes in your ASCII
circuit. A mistake that exists due to no protector design experience.

Protection is about earthing. The effective protector must make a
short (low impedance) connection to earth - as every responsible
source says and John denies. Voltages between wires is trivial.
Voltages (and more important - current) between each wire and earth
defines surge protection. One effective protector means earthing even
ten thousand amps to earth - without damage.

John - I only listed simplest mistakes in your ASCII protector
circuit. More exist. But you don't even know the most basic numbers
or a V-I chart for MOVs. You still confuse irrelevant resistance with
what so many other sources discuss? Wire impedance.

Why do sharp bends cause further compromise surge protection? Sharp
bends don't affect wire resistance and increases wire impedance. So
why do you still discuss resistance?