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

[bud--]

No surge
protection stops or absorbs the common mode surge - surge that
typically causes appliance damage.

..
Never explained - how does a common mode surge on incoming power lines
get past the N-G bond required in all US services.

And neither service panel or plug-in suppressors protect by "stopping"
or "absorbing".
..

As Bud's NIST states:

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

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.

..
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." What a radical idea.
..

No way around what a protector does. Either it stops (absorbs)
surge energy OR is diverts (shunts, connects, clamps) that surge
energy into earth.

..
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The
guide explains they do not work primarily by earthing. And they
certainly do not work by stopping or absorbing.
..

Who should the OP believe? John Fields? Or Sun Microsystems ...
and the IEEE, NIST

..
The OP should believe the IEEE and NIST. Both say plug-in suppressors
are effective.
..

John do you really believe a hundred joules in a UPS or power strip
will stop (by absorbing) lightning energy?

..
w_’s religious blinders prevent him from understanding how plug-in
suppressors work. It is not by stopping or absorbing.

And repeating:
"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."

One-hundred Joules is a red herring. Plug-in suppressors with very high
ratings are readily available at low cost..
..

No problem.
Electronics routinely withstand 600 volt transients without damage - a
standard from 1970.

..
Provide that standard.
..

Protection is about earthing.

..
The IEEE guide explains that for plug-in suppressors, earthing occurs
elsewhere in the system, not primarily through the suppressor.


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

Why doesn’t anyone on a science newsgroup 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."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- 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?

Why no answers w_???

 

[w_tom]

Regardless of what your "responsible" sources say, situations exist
where grounding is impossible and the subject line of this thread:

"Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is not
available?"

No equipment grounding is available at OP's receptacles. That is
code acceptable. Not acceptable would be a missing earth ground at
breaker box. Breaker box ground must be installed to have any surge
protection (transistor safety) AND must exist to meet code
requirements for human safety. No way around that necessary earth
ground.

John, your ASCII diagrams were lucid. You did try to explain how
you thought surge protection works. But again, you did not even know
how MOVs perform and your calculation were for wire resistance. As a
result, what you thought was a potentially destructive surge - 8 amps
- is considered so trivial as to be made irrelevant by protection
already inside all appliances. Your calculations for 0.15 ohm
resistance (14 AWG wire) should have been using 130 ohms impedance for
that same wire.

Surge protecction is installed to earth 'tens of thousand' amp
surges without damage. Earth before surges can enter a building so
that protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Routine is
a direct lightning strike to incoming utility wires without damage.
After all, telcos will suffer maybe 100 such surges during every
thunderstorm - without Central Office damage. To have no damage, all
telco COs use 'whole house' protectors and an even better earth
ground. What makes the protector even better? Better earthing.

Even Bell System papers in the 1950s (before transistors existed)
would discuss this surge threat. OP's solution is the equivalent
solution found in transistorized COs today. Posted was a simplest
solution even for the OP and his 1950 vintage wiring - that also costs
less money.

No reason (for protection or for code requirements) to install
safety ground on any AC receptacles. Earthing electrode (required for
code requirements and surge protection) is essential for the
protection that the OP requests. No way around that necessary
earthing electrode and a short connection to one 'whole house'
protector.

Either the OP has only two wire receptacles and no protection (even
if using plug-in protectors). Or he has two wire receptacles, code
required earthing, one 'whole house' protector - and effective
protection. Those are his options.

As every responsible source notes, protection means:

... divert the power of the surge by providing a path
to ground for the surge energy. - Sun Microsystems OR
... your surge protector will work by diverting the
surges to ground. - Bud's NIST citation.

Protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

 

[w_tom]

Never explained - how does a common mode surge on incoming power lines
get past the N-G bond required in all US services.
And neither service panel or plug-in suppressors protect by "stopping"
or "absorbing".
...
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The
guide explains they do not work primarily by earthing.

Bud routinely repeats same allegations hoping that a lurker will
forget those answers were provided repeatedly. Yes, an AC electric
neutral wire is connected to breaker box earthing. A surge does not
enter on neutral wire. Both hot wires connect surges directly to
household appliances without any connection to earth. How are both
hot wires earthed and still provide electricity to appliances? The
100 year old solution: one 'whole house' protector connects each hot
wire to earth ground.

A protector acts like a switch: closes (connects) each hot wire to
earth ground only during surges. Now surge energy on all three AC
electric wires is earthed before entering a building. Earth is where
surge energy must be harmlessly dissipated. Then protection inside
all appliances is not overwhelmed. A protector within feet of earth
ground AND well separated from appliances provides best protection -
and for less money.

The IEEE guide says a plug-in protector will clamp to itself – also
called clamping to nothing. Surge energy remains; still seeking a
path to earth. IEEE guide also says plug-in protectors are an easiest
solution. What did Bud forget to mention? The easy solution can
create appliance damage. Page 42 Figure 8. IEEE guide shows why the
easiest solution may contribute to appliance damage. When an 'easy'
protector is too far from earth ground and too close to appliances,
then an 8000 volt surge destroyed an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
That energy must be earthed OR that energy will find destructive paths
to earth maybe via household appliances.

If you learn this, then profits diminish.

Both Bud citations, and Sun Microsystems, many IEEE Standards (IEEE
Red Book, Green Book, Emerald Book), 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, Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down
house ... in every case, effective protectors have a short and
dedicated connection to single point earth ground. One 'whole house'
protector is not 100% protection. From the IEEE Standard:

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.

Why would anyone waste $25 or $150 per appliance on protectors that
may contribute to adjacent appliance damage? Even with plug-in
protectors, a 'whole house' protector is still necessary. Bud is
quick to define an "easiest solution" that provide profits. Bud
forgets what the IEEE demonstrates – the “easiest solution” can also
make appliance damage possible – Page 42 Figure 8.

Bud still does not provide plug-in protector numeric specs that
claim protection. An "easiest solution" does not protect from surges
that typically damage appliances. Did Bud again forget to post those
manufacturer numeric specs? Bud again refuses to post what does not
exist. Plug-in protectors – the “easiest solution” - do not claim
such protection in numeric specs. Did Bud also forget to mention that
part?

Bud even forgot what earths all three AC wires so that surges need
not damage any appliance. One properly earthed 'whole house'
protector. Bud does conveniently forget things that don't promote
plug-in protectors. Bud also forgets that a protector is only as
effective as its earth ground - where surge energy must be diverted.

 

[bud--]

A surge does not
enter on neutral wire. Both hot wires connect surges directly to
household appliances without any connection to earth.

..
A common mode surge to a TV enters on hot *and* neutral. The subject is
common mode - see the top quote. w_ has still not answered how a
common mode surge gets past the N-G bond required in US services. What a
surprise.
..

Both Bud citations....

..
Who (in this thread) says plug-in suppressors are effective?
- Nist guide
- IEEE guide
- IEEE Emerald book
- Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down house

Who says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective?
- w_
..

Bud still does not provide plug-in protector numeric specs that
claim protection.

..
As I have pointed out several times, specs have already been posted in
this thread.

w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels - if you repeat the lie often enough,
people will believe it. Too bad w_, it doesn’t seem to be working.


But 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."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- 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?

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

 

[w_tom]

Who (in this thread) says plug-in suppressors are effective?
- Nist guide
- IEEE guide
- IEEE Emerald book
- Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down house

Every one shows or states that the plug-in protector can contribute
to appliance damage. Every one states why the effective protector
must be earthed. But when one's job is to lie to promoted scam
protector sales, then one must deny what ever source says is necessary
for protection.

In every case, the protector is only a connection (diverts to) earth
ground. 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.

From Martzloff:

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.

Iif this was wrong, then Bud would post those numeric specs on every
plug-in protector that lists each type of surge and protection from
that surge. Why does Bud refuse to post those specs? Even the
manufacturer will not make Bud's protection claims. Bud cannot post
protection specs because not one plug-in protector makes that claim.
So Bud does what a sales promoter must do when confronted by an
engineer - lie.

The effective protector *diverts* surge energy into earth. A surge
not dissipated in earth will be dissipated destructively inside
appliances. It is that simple. Bud must lie, spin, and insult to
avoid that reality. Bud's job is to protect obscene profits. Honesty
is not Bud.

 

[bud--]

Honesty
is not Bud.

..
Intelligence is not w_.

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

And 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."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- 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?

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

 

[w_tom]

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

When reality threatens profits, Bud often posts insults in the
tradition of Rush Limbaugh. To some, insults are proof. Even Bud's
NIST citation says what an effective protector does:

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

Which is it? Magically suppress that surge energy as Bud says, or
divert surge energy to earth?

Sun Microsystems' Planning Guide for a Sun Server Room says same:

Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can
be diverted. ... These [protectors] should divert the
power of the surge by providing a path to ground
for the surge energy.

Bud promotes protectors that have no earth ground. Even his own
citations demonstrate damage when a protector does not have a short
earthing connection. Page 42 Figure 8. That surge still must find
earth ground. A plug-in protector simply gave that surge more paths
to earth - 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances.

Bud - whose job is to protect obscene profits - will say anything to
avoid facts. However, if his plug-in protector did provide
protection, then Bud could simply post those numeric specs. Oh? No
plug-in protector will claim protection in numeric specs? No wonder
Bud will ask irrelevant questions, post insults, and never post those
specs. Bud cannot post spec numbers that do not exist. So Bud will
even post insults - because profits are at risk.

Bud never provides a solution for the OP. Bud cannot. The OP's
solution is also the best protection for all homes. No two wire to
three wire receptacle upgrades required. Simply upgrade breaker box
earthing to meet and exceed post 1990 code (also provides human
safety) AND install one 'whole house' protector. Best solution also
costs less money.

 

[bud--]

However, if his plug-in protector did provide
protection, then Bud could simply post those numeric specs.

..
The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.

But still not provided - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And 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."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- 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?

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

 

[w_tom]

The lie repeated - a la Goebbels. Specs were provided long ago.

More insults from Bud who cannot answer the only relevant fact. Where
does a plug-in protector manufacturer claim protection in numeric
specs? Bud refuses.

Even every one of Bud's citations from the NIST and IEEE show how and
why plug-in protectors don't provide protection AND can contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

No earth ground means no effective protection. But a $3 power strip
with some ten cent parts selling for up to $150 is promoted by Bud.
Profits - not protection - are Bud's purpose. Effective protector has
a short connection to earth.

Bud will reply with more insults and still no manufacturer specs.
Even manufacturers do not claim what Bud posts. Honesty is not Bud.
Posting insults when engineering facts do not exist – that is the
sales promoter Bud.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

More insults from Bud who cannot answer the only relevant fact.

How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

 

[bud--]

How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

And the #1 question w_ can't answer:
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?

 

[w_tom]

How can we explain anything to W_T, when he does not understand even
basic principals?

You criticize but never provide basic electrical principles as even
taught in first year EE courses. Don't forget to cite your designs
that did and did not prevent surge damage as I have. Of course you
have generations of experience building this stuff? Or do you know
only because plug-in protectors are promoted just like Saddam's WMDs?

Even Bud's citations state why a plug-in protector does and does not
work. Even demonstrated is a plug-in protector contributing to
appliance damage - as we engineers have also observed over the many
decades. Every responsible source says why a protector without
earthing does not provide protection. But if Sjouke knows better,
then why does he not post those facts and numbers?

Why do telcos not use Bud's 'clamping to nothing' principles? Why
do all responsible sources state where surge energy must be
dissipated? Sjouke - since you know better, then fill us with your
wisdom. Tell us how Bud's protector - that does not even claim to
provide protection - somehow earths surges. Explain how Bud's
'clamping to nothing' makes surge energy disappear.

Or do you just know (as so many others) because you were educated by
retail salesmen? The majority also *proved* Saddam had WMDs using
Sjouke's logic.

 

[w_tom]

I doubt whether that's true, since it would just be another one of
your many lies, but _I_ posted links to manufacturers who _do_ specify
their plug-in protectors in terms of energy-handling capacity.
Seems you glossed over that in order not to have to admit that you
were wrong.

John cited a protector's joules as proof that protectors work by
absorbing all of a surge. If true, then a better protector - with
more joules - will absorb even more surge joules? Wrong. A better
protector - higher joules - absorbs *less* joules. Why? Obvious if
grasping what every citation says or reading MOV V-I curves.

Example: a 100 joule MOV conducting 2000 amperes will absorb about
100 joules - trivial energy (a kilowatt hour is 3.6 million joules) -
while dissipating maybe 5000+ joules into earth. A ten times larger
(1000 joule 'whole house') protector absorbs less: 75 joules during
the same 2000 amp surge. Why? Better protection means the protector
absorbs even less energy in direct contradiction to what John Fields
only assumed.

Protectors don't work by absorbing the surge just like wires do not
work by absorbing energy. Better protectors and wires absorb even
less energy. Effective protection *diverts* more surge energy into
earth. How does John Fields deny this? He cites the definition of
joules in Wikipedia rather than learn what those joules actually
measure in datasheets.

John also confuses a typically non-destructive surge with common
mode surges. Shunt (connect, clamp) all wires together and that surge
energy remains; still requiring a path to earth. Page 42 Figure 8 -
that John admits he did not read - demonstrated what a plug-in
protector (without earthing) does while shunting all wires together.
That surge energy still must find a path to earth ground - ie 8000
volts destructively via an adjacent TV. Shunting (clamping,
connecting) wires together does nothing to make that surge energy
disappear. This has been explained to John multiple times. But he
does not grasp the electrical concept of a common mode surge.

John suggests buying more plug-in protectors as Bud recommends. A
homeowner must purchase $2000 or $3000 in plug-in protectors. After
all, spending tens or 100 times less money to protect everything is
what - too smart? Why does John Fields recommend separate protectors
for the furnace, every clock radio, each GFCI, the microwave,
dishwasher, dryer, etc? John somehow knows that earthing, as
recommended by every responsible source, does not provide protection?

According to John, the OP must rewire an entire building with three
wire receptacles. But one 'whole house' protector with earthing (as
also required by code) answers the OP's questions while providing
effective and superior protection. A superior solution also costs
tens or 100 times less money. Somehow John Fields knows otherwise
while even refusing to read engineers teaching surge protection in
"Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".

John Fields does not even know the difference between wire impedance
and characteristic impedance. How does John Fields deny this? He
cites another Wikipedia article on characteristic impedance - and
still does not comprehend wire impedance. If John had engineering
training and understood common mode, then characteristic impedance
obviously is irrelevant. Characteristic impedance is not wire
impedance.

Provided was a front page article from Electrical Engineering Times
describing wire impedance AND why low wire impedance is essential for
surge protection. John refuses to read that either. John assumes
wire impedance and characteristic impedance is same. Therefore he
knows what a protector can work without grounding when all responsible
sources require that earthing.

A plug-in protector is complete protection? Good. John Fields then
posts manufacturer numeric specs for each type of surge and protection
from that surge. No such protection spec exists. Only listed are
joules. John Fields has so little grasp as to assume a few hundred or
1000 joules will absorb a direct lightning strike. Protectors don't
protect by absorbing the entire surge as John posts. But if
protectors did, well, a 1000 joule surge is a near zero (almost non-
existent) surge. Just another engineering fact that John did not
learn.

John - effective protection is not about limiting voltage between
two wires. Those surges typically are not destructive. Effective
protection is about diverting energy from every wire into earth. Only
shunt (clamp) some wires together and the surge still exists. Still
exists with more wires to find earth ground 8000 volts destructively
through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

John - you don't know the difference between characteristic impedance
and wire impedance. You cannot provide a spec that claims
protection. You don't understand what joules measures in an MOV -
higher joule protector means less joules is absorbed during the same
surge. You cannot even bother to read citations such as EE Times or
Page 42 Figure 8. You just know without first learning. And you
don't have EE training.

Effective protection means surge energy must be dissipated in earth
and before entering a building. That solution is available to the OP
- or did John Fields also forget the OP question?

 

[Baron]

w_tom Inscribed thus:

Drivel Snipped.

 

[bud--]

---
I haven't seen the reference, but I'd guess that had that TV also been
protected by an adequate plug-in protector it would have suffered no
damage.
---

Did you work for the Psychic Hotline? The point of the illustration for
the IEEE is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2
is required."

The illustration does not show a plug-in suppressor at TV1 contributing
to adjacent appliance damage. It is one of w_'s favorite lies.

 

[bud--]

The majority also *proved* Saddam had WMDs using
Sjouke's logic.

..
w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the lack of supporting sources.


Like - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

And still missing - answers to 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."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?

- 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?

Why can't you ever answer simple questions w_? Why should anyone
believe you???

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

 

[w_tom]

But you don't even understand basic physics, as attested to by the
fact that you didn't even realize that a diagram I posted earlier
showed how an MOV works in a circuit containing a resistive load and
reactive mains conductors, so it's no wonder you're confused about
what the data sheets indicate.

And again, insufficient knowledge even for a technician. If MOVs
work by absorbing surges, then voltage must increase to absorb more
surge. But MOVs don't do that. MOVs conduct more current (by
decreasing voltage) so that minimal energy is absorbed and more energy
can be dissipated elsewhere.

John saw the word 'joules', then assumed MOVs stop surges by
absorbing all joules. Well, yes, just like wire transfers energy by
absorbing all energy.

If John had studied V-I charts as an engineer, then daming evidence
would be obvious. Again the obvious example. Whereas the 100 joule
MOV absorbs 100 joules during a 2000 amp surge; the better 1000 joule
protector absorbs only 75 joules while conducting that same 2000 amp
surge. Why? Better surge protectors absorb LESS surge energy.
Obvous even in those V-I charts that John never studied.

John does what many TV repairmen do. He assumes that by shunting
two wires together, then surge energy will magically disappear.
Shunting two wires together only gives a surge more paths to find
earth ground. With or without those wires together, the surge still
most connect to earth. If one of those wires is a 'less than10 foot'
connection to earth, then all surge energy gets dissipiated harmlessly
in earth. If no earthing connection. then a surge has more wires to
find earth ground even destructively through adjacent appliances -
Page 42 Figure 8.

To understand this, John must learn what wire impedance is. But
John (without basic electrical training) confuses relevant wire
impedance with obvioiusly irrelevant characteristic impedance. Even
a trained tech would not make that mistake. John does not understand
wire impedance, did not study those MOV V-I charts, but magically
knows what MOVs do.

If MOVs works as John decrees, then why does a larger joule MOV
absorb so much less energy? Because an ideal best protector absorbs
no energy; diverts (shunts, connects, clamps) all surge energy
harmlessly into earth.

How does a tiny joule MOV absorb so much more energy? It does not.
Effective MOVs shunt surges to be dissipated in earth. John even
believes a 1000 joule MOV must absorb more energy. Hdid not even
comprehend MOV datasheets.

 

[w_tom]

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

Page 42 Figure 8 shows damage inside the building because a surge
was not earthed by one 'whole house' proector. Bud now recommends
spending $3000 on plug-in protectors. You should replace these every
three years So what protects the dishwasher, furnance, smoke
detectors ... Oh. Instead of destroying TV2, other critical
appliances that cannot use plug-in protectors get destroyed. That is
Bud's recommendaton. Spend obscene money on his products.

One properly earthed 'whole house' protector means better protection
for everything at about $1 per protected appliance. How curious.
Where high reliability facilities need effective protection, plug-in
protectors are not installed. Less money spent using a 'whole house'
protector with proper earthing. Also superior protection. Plug-in
protextors cannot do what Bud's citation says a protector must do

... your surge protector will work by diverting the surges
to ground. The best surge protector in the world can be
useless if grounding is not done properly.

$3000+ of Bud's protectors are defined by the NIST as useless.
However one effective protector *diverts* surge energy harmlessly to
earth. An effective protector has that low impedance connection to
single point earth ground. Ineffective plug-in protectors - oh - its
numeric specs don't even claim protection. No wonder Bud refuses to
provide any manufacturer specs for protection. None exist.

Page 42 Figure 8 - another example of damage because a protector was
too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. Bud solution:
buy more. As every responsible source says including IEEE and NIST: a
protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Why do cable companies recommend removing that plug-in protector?
Even the cable (properly installed) is earthed. A surge earthed
before entering the building will not earth a surge 8000 volts
destructively through any TVs. Damage on Page 42 Figure 8 averted and
without any plug-in protectors..

 

[bud--]

No wonder Bud refuses to
provide any manufacturer specs for protection. None exist.

..
Ho hum –the lie repeated a la Goebbels (at least the 4th time). Specs
were provided long ago.
..

a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

..
And the required religious mantra.

But still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

And still missing - answers to 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."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why does w_ get no respect in a science newsgroup?

- 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?


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

 

[w_tom]

But still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Bud is a sales promoter for plug-in protectors. He will even post
insult to protect those obscene profit margins on $3 power strips with
some ten cent parts. Bud's citations show how a plug-in protector may
even earth a surge 8000 volts destrutively through the adjacent TV -
Page 42 Figure 8. Bud's other citatoin is quite blunt about unearth
protectors:

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

Bud says no ground is necessary. Surge energy will magically
disappear with his miracle plug-in protector.

Where does Bud or Michael Terrell answer the OP's question? Neither
do. Their proof is in insult and lies. The informed consumer earths
only one 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected
appliance. Superior solution also required by the OP also costs tens
or 100 times less money. Bud must reply because obscene profits are
at risk. The informed consumer buys that effective 'whole house'
protectors from responsible companies such as Intermatic, Keison,
Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Levition, Siemens, or GE. Protectors that
make a short earth ground connection.

Where does that surge energy get dissipated? Bud and Michael claim
that energy will magically disappear. Responsible citations all state
that surge energy must be dissipiated in earth.

Only one spec matters. Manufacturer numbers for protection from each
type of surge. Bud refused to provide those numbers. No plug-in
protector claims effective protection. So Bud posts more insults
incessently and never answers the OP's question.