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

[Baron]

w_tom Inscribed thus:

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:
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.

W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable !

 

[w_tom]

W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable !

You don't contribute anything technical. You don't ask any
technical questions. You only post insults. Why then do you keep
posting?

Boring? These principles have not changed in 100 years.
Destructive surges still seek earth ground as 100 years ago.
Protection has always been about diverting so that surge energy gets
dissipated harmlessly in earth - as ham radio operators demonstrated
80 years ago. But somehow a grossly overpriced protector will protect
by violating these well proven principles? Hardly.

Meanwhile, the OP asked about protection using only two wire
receptacles. Where do you offer the OP a solution? A solution that
requires no house rewiring and that is superior to any plug-in
protector was provided. Where is your solution?

 

[w_tom]

W_tom, your drivel, its getting a bit boring ! You're so predictable !

You don't contribute anything technical. You don't ask any
technical questions. You only post insults. Why then do you keep
posting?

Boring? These principles have not changed in 100 years.
Destructive surges still seek earth ground as 100 years ago.
Protection has always been about diverting so that surge energy gets
dissipated harmlessly in earth - as ham radio operators demonstrated
80 years ago. But somehow a grossly overpriced protector will protect
by violating these well proven principles? Hardly.

Meanwhile, the OP asked about protection using only two wire
receptacles. Where do you offer the OP a solution? A solution that
requires no house rewiring and that is superior to any plug-in
protector was provided. Where is your solution?

 

[Baron]

w_tom wrote:

The same post twice !

You don't contribute anything technical. You don't ask any
technical questions. You only post insults. Why then do you keep
posting?

Well you didn't get the gentle hints !

Boring? These principles have not changed in 100 years.

Principles may not have changed ! But techniques have !

Destructive surges still seek earth ground as 100 years ago.

I thought that was lightening !

Protection has always been about diverting so that surge energy gets
dissipated harmlessly in earth - as ham radio operators demonstrated
80 years ago. But somehow a grossly overpriced protector will protect
by violating these well proven principles? Hardly.

Are all energy surges due to lightening ?

Meanwhile, the OP asked about protection using only two wire
receptacles. Where do you offer the OP a solution? A solution that
requires no house rewiring and that is superior to any plug-in
protector was provided. Where is your solution?

For the OP case is there a superior solution ?

To be honest I don't know why I am wasting my time and bandwidth
encouraging you !

 

[w_tom]

Principles may not have changed !  But techniques have !
...
Are all energy surges due to lightening ?

If techniques have changed, then show me. Where is this technique
that makes the principles irrelevant? Yes, we have protector that are
smaller, last longer, and can earth more direct lightning strikes
without damage. But the 100 year old principles remain same. A
protector still must earth that surge energy AND the protector must
remain functional even after direct lightning strikes.

Are all surges due to lightning? Of course not. But any protection
'system' must earth direct lightning strikes and remain functional.
Another surge can be created by utility switching. A 'whole house'
system also makes that all other trivial surges irrelevant. One
protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Even with 100 plug-in
protectors - one for every smoke detector, dishwasher, clock radio,
etc - that same protection cannot be achieved.

Have techniques changed? Yes. Some manufacturers have discovered a
profit 'gold mine' selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts
for $25 or $150. Such protectors violate surge protection
principles. No problem. They are so profitable AND so many consumers
believe the myths.

From the IEEE Green Book entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :

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 ...

How do plug-in protectors get around such numbers? Plug-in
protectors make no numeric protection claims. Read it yourself.
Where does that plug-in protector list protection from each type of
surge in numeric specs? It does not. A complete solution - the plug-
in protector - does not even claim any protection? Of course not.
Why bother. Techniques have changed. Profits now trump protection -
when not using effective protectors.

Why does your telco switching center, that may suffer 100 surges
during every thunderstorm, not waste money on plug-in protectors? Why
do all telco facilities use 'whole house' protectors and earthing?
Rather obvious. Telco need effective protection. They don't have
money to waste on ineffective, and obscenely overpriced plug-in
protectors.

 

[w_tom]

I posted, earlier, links to manufacturers who _did_ rate their
protectors in terms of capability of energy absorption, but you seem
to have ignored that in your relentless quest for vain infallibility.

Had John learned how protectors work: it is a shunt mode protector.
They don't work by absorbing surges as John only assumes. Joules in
numeric specs do not make any claim for protection. What does more
joules mean? More joules means a protector absorbs even less surge
energy. More joules does not define protection - as John Fields
immediately assumes. No plug-in protector lists protection from each
type of surge. Plug-in protectors cannot protect from the typically
destructive surge.

John foolishly assumes more joules means more energy absorbed. But
shunt mode protectors don't protect by absorbing the surge. As so
many cited professional sources say: it works by ***diverting***
energy into earth where energy is harmlessly dissipated. From the
NIST:

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

John, you posted no technical facts. You post insults due to
insufficient technical knowledge. . John even confused characteristic
impedance with wire impedance. A mistake that a trained engineer
would never make.

John - joules is a measure of how MOVs conduct. A wire is rated in
amperes. Same conducting abilities for MOVs are measured in joules.

Facts that John does not even dispute: whereas a 100 joule MOV may
absorb 100 joules during a 2000 amp surge; a 1000 joule MOV may
absorb only 75 joules during the same 2000 amp surge. Better MOV
(higher joules) means the MOV absorbs even less energy. Why? Better
protection means even more energy is *diverted* into earth. Earth is
where tens or thousands of times more energy gets dissipated -
harmlessly.

John still did not understand MOV V-I charts. John's technical
proof is using the word 'idiot'. Just another indication of
insufficient electrical training. That same word also proved Saddam
had Wads.

John Fields saw a joules numbers. So he immediately assumed MOVs
protect by absorbing all of a surge - even though MOV datasheets and
E=IR says otherwise.

John - if you had EE training, then you would have never confused
characteristic impedance with wire impedance. You would have seen the
obvious - a larger joule MOV absorbs even less energy. A trained
engineer would understand this. Instead you post insults.

Whereas a 100 joule MOV may absorb 100 joules during a 2000 amp
surge; a large 1000 joule MOV would only absorb 75 joules. Better
protectors absorb even less energy - a direct contradiction to what
John Fields has assumed. Best protectors *divert* even more energy
dissipated in earth. Better protectors have better earthing because
earth (not a protector) provides the protection - absorbs surge
energy.

So where is that plug-in protector numeric spec that lists each type
of surge and protection from that surge? John Fields does not provide
what does not exist. John has foolishly assumed more joules define
protection. Monster Cable loves customers like John.

 

[w_tom]

   Because their power supplies don't plug in.  They rare relay rack
sized, and hardwired to a circuit breaker.

Who said anything about power supplies? Why do you assume? Telcos
have tens of thousands of overhead wires entering the building to
connect directly to a switching computer. Telco switching centers
suffer about 100 surges during every storm. So they disconnect all
incoming wires during every thunderstorm? Of course not. Telcos must
never suffer damage. Telcos use no obscenely overpriced plug-in
protectors. Instead, telcos install a protector up to 50 meters
distant from electronics AND as close as possible to earth ground.
What makes telco protectors effective? That short connection to earth
ground.

Telco also installs the equivalent solution on all subscriber lines
where their wires meter household wires. Again, what makes that
protector effective? Did you provide a sufficient single point earth
ground?

Apparently you have not learned how telco switching centers are
designed. Any wire not earthed - either directly or through a
protector - means surge energy is permitted inside the building. Any
surge inside a building means surges can seek earth ground
destructively via electronics. Protection is always about *diverting*
energy into earth; keep surge currents outside the facility. That
means ground connections measured in feet - shorter if possible.

No plug-in protector claims protection from typically destructive
surges. Obviously. No earth ground means no effective protection. A
protector does not provide protection. A protector is what *diverts*
surge energy into what provides protection - earth ground. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So telcos use
properly earthed protectors - do not waste money on obscenely
overpriced plug-in protectors.

Same surge can damage electronics in commercial broadcasting
stations, telco switching centers, airports, or homes. Now that homes
have electronics, protection routinely installed in other facilities
is now also required in homes. Protector that costs maybe $1 per
protected appliance. A less expensive solution is one 'whole house'
protector AND earthing upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC
requirements. Less expensive solution also is the superior solution.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why
telcos use earthed protectors - don't waste money on plug-in
protectors.

 

[Baron]

Its like an echo !

 

[w_tom]

Its like an echo !

It's also called electricity. It did not change because some retail
store salesman taught you something different. For 100 years - surge
energy must be dissipated in earth. No earth ground connection is why
plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide that protection. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground - where that surge
energy must be dissipated and where surge currents must go to stay out
of the building.

When damage is not an option, the 'whole house' protector - not plug-
in protectors - are installed AND earthing is upgraded. A superior
solution that also costs less money.

Where does Baron post a technical fact that disputes this? Baron -
attacking the messenger is not science. Spin and insults never created
surge protection. Where does Baron answer the OP's question?

Protection for appliances inside a house of two wire receptacles is
to upgrade the building's earth ground, install one 'whole house'
protector, not upgrade interior wiring, and not waste money on plug-in
protectors. Money wasted on plug-in protectors is better spent on
upgrading a single point earth ground to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC
requirements.

 

[w_tom]

What you're doing is confusing the MOV's ratings with their resistance
at a particular current.

As I noted earlier, and which you conveniently failed to address, is
that an MOV rated higher in energy absorption capability than another
will have a lower resistance for the same current through it because
of its larger volume of conductive material.

That larger volume is what gives it a higher energy rating in that it
will take more energy to heat it to destruction, which is what this is
all about.

John is now saying what I posted. Are you now admitting what an
MOV's function is? Not to absorb more surge energy. The purpose of
an MOV is to absorb less surge energy AND to divert more surge energy
into earth. Protection is about shunting tens of thousands of joules
into earth through a 100 joule MOV while having that protector
undamaged.

How does a wire - that absorbs energy - conduct more energy
elsewhere? Wire volume increases. How does an MOV provide protection
by conducting more energy elsewhere? MOV volume increases. A wire
has a higher amp rating. An MOV has a higher joule rating. Both work
by shunting (diverting) energy elsewhere. What does the effective
protector do? A low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') connection
diverts surge energy harmlessly in earth. How does a plug-in
protector do that?.

Better MOVs absorb even less energy and divert more energy to where
energy is dissipated. Therefore an MOV must make a low impedance (ie
short) connection to earth. 'Whole house' protectors do that. Plug-
in protectors do not.

What is necessary for an effective protector? MOV must never go
'belly up'. Any MOV that fails catastrophically (trips a failure
indicator light) was grossly undersized and left the appliance to fend
for itself. How many have seen plug-in protectors with a failed
indication - 'belly up'? A problem with plug-in protector that are
grossly undersized (to maximize profits) or that must disconnect MOVs
even faster to avoid this other problem:
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/
If a thermal fuse does not disconnect MOVs fast, then these scary
pictures are another problem even with UL1449 approved power strip
protectors.

Plug-in protectors provide protection from surges that typically
cause no damage. Effective protection is already inside the
appliance. Internal appliance protection makes those surges
irrelevant. A 'whole house' protector also makes those surges
irrelevant. So what does a plug-in protector do? What it does
protect from is made irrelevant elsewhere. A plug-in protector
cannot protect from what causes damage - no earth ground..

Typically destructive surge seeks earth ground. Protectors for this
type surge must have a low impedance (not low characteristic
impedance) earthing connection. How to identify the ineffective
protector? 1) No dedicated earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all
discussion about earthing. Where is protection from surges that seek
earth ground? Will an MOV magically absorb such surges? Of course
not. MOV are not surge absorbers. MOVs must have what every
responsible citation requires - a low impedance connection to earth.
MOV can only divert surge energy into earth - or accomplish nothing.

John, how do you dispute this? You deny what every responsible
source requires - a low impedance earthing connection. Why do you know
all those citations are wrong? Does the NIST not make it blunt enough
for you?

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.

MOVs do not function by absorbing surges. MOVs divert surge energy
into earth. MOV that shunts wires together simply leaves surge energy
still seeking a destructive path to earth - ie 8000 volts
destructively via an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

Only way that a plug-in protector can make surge energy disappear -
MOV must absorb all joules. But even John now admits MOVs don't do
that. How does a 100 joule protector absorb tens of thousands of
joules? How does that MOV stop what three miles of sky could not?
Responsible sources say an effective MOV must *divert* energy - not
absorb it. How does an MOV without a low impedance earth connection
absorb surge energy or make that surge energy disappear?

John says:

... what you still don't seem to understand is that the rating
of the MOV, in joules, indicates how much energy the
MOV is _allowed_ to absorb before it becomes seriously
damaged.

So a 100 joule MOV 'degraded - not damaged' by a 2000 amp surge can
only dissipate 100 joules. False. If numerous surges are 1 amp, then
the MOV absorbs far more than 100 joules. Joules is a ballpark
measurement for MOV life expectancy; not a measure of how much energy
an MOV can absorb.

MOVs must not be damaged - must never vaporize, burn, or explode.
Must never trigger that failure indicator. MOVs must only degrade.
Damaged MOVs are another problem with grossly undersized power strip
protectors. Because so many plug-in protectors are grossly
undersized, John and others assume that is normal failure. MOVs must
only degrade - not burn.

The numbers from datasheets. That 100 joule protector can conduct a
2000 amp surge only once; absorb 100 joules. It is degraded - not
burned. Same MOV will absorb 100 joules after conducting about 5,000
1 amp surges. So the MOV is degraded? Of course not. Same MOV is
rated to conduct 20,000 1 amp surges. Same100 joule protector can
absorb 400 joules - contradicting what John Fields has posted. As
accurately stated earlier, Joules is only a ballpark measurement of
MOV life expectancy. Joules says nothing about effective protection.

So John, you are now trying to weasel out of your confusion between
wire impedance and characteristic impedance. Provided was an
engineering source that described wire impedance as essential to
effective surge protection. John also denied that citation. John - I
did not post assumptions. I posted well understood engineering
facts. You did not even grasp a simple concept - wire impedance
increases with wire length. Effective MOV protectors need a low
impedance connection to earth - ie 'less than 10 feet'.

John says:

If they're UL listed that'll be given in UL1449.

UL does not care whether a protector provides protection. UL only
cares that a protector does not kill humans or burn down the house. A
joules number says nothing about protection. That joules number does
not even say how many joules actually participate in protection.
That total joules number only says that is how many were inside a
protector when tested.

At protector can completely fail during UL surge testing AND still
be UL1449 approved. UL does not care whether a protector does any
protection. Plug-in protectors with UL1449 approval have no specs
that claim surge protection. John, who previously assumed MOVs work by
absorbing all surges, would assume joules define protection?
Nonsense.

No plug-in protector claims to provide protection. John Fields also
does not post such protection numbers. He cannot. Plug-in
manufacturers do spec what is not provided. Joules number says
nothing about protection. Joules is only a ballpark life expectancy
estimate.

Protection is provided by what absorbs surge energy - earth ground.
No earth ground means no effective protection. Therefore power strip
specs do not list protection from the typically destructive surge.

What is necessary to provide effective protection? Something to
absorb surge energy: earth ground. A low impedance connection from
each incoming wire to the surge absorber - earth ground. How
strange. A plug-in protector that has neither. A surge protector
will absorb or stop what three miles of sky could not? Of course
not. No wonder John cannot provide a manufacture spec for protection
from each type of surge. John had trouble understanding MOV joules
and wire impedance. Well, at least John stopped claiming the MOV
functions by absorbing all surge energy.

 

[bud--]

Does the NIST not make it blunt enough
for you?

..
What does the NIST guide really say?
Plug-in suppressors are the "easiest solution".
w_ is fond of distorting what everyone says.
..

John says:

UL does not care whether a protector provides protection. UL only
cares that a protector does not kill humans or burn down the house.

..
There are multiple tests to pass UL1449. One of the early ones is a
series of 20 surges. The suppressor can not fail during that test.

The suppressor can fail later. For example when subjected to long
overvoltage a suppressor can fail safely. (MOVs are good at very high
currents for very short duration (surge) but not long duration.)

Contrary to w_'s delusions, UL1449 includes tests to assure suppressors
(both plug-in and service panel) have protection functionality.
..

No plug-in protector claims to provide protection. John Fields also
does not post such protection numbers.

..
But I did. Long ago.
..

No earth ground means no effective protection.

..
Poor w_ thinks his religious mantra will protect him from the heathens
than abound in this newsgroup. Sorry w_, it isn’t working.

Poor w_ still can’t find a link to another lunatic that agrees that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And poor w_ still can’t answer 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?

 

[w_tom]

What does the NIST guide really say?
Plug-in suppressors are the "easiest solution".
...
There are multiple tests to pass UL1449. One of the early ones is a
series of 20 surges. The suppressor can not fail during that test.

The suppressor can fail later. For example when subjected to long
overvoltage a suppressor can fail safely. (MOVs are good at very high
currents for very short duration (surge) but not long duration.)

The guide says plug-in protectors are an easiest solution. Then the
guide says why the easiest solutoin does not provide effective
protection. A sales promoter routinely forgets what is on Page 42
Figure 8. A protector too close to appliances and without earth
ground may even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through
adjacent TV. That surge energy must be earthed or that surge energy
will be inside the house finding other paths to earth. Bud tells us
'clamping to nothing' makes surge energy disappear. Profits are at
risk.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. But ignores
that part to make half truth claims: a plug-in protector is an
easiest solution. He forgets the other part. A plug-in protector
does not even claim, in numeric specs, to provide protection. It is a
protector but it does not even claim protection from the typically
destructive surge. Did Bud also forget that other part? No numeric
specs claim protection.

A protector can fail during UL1449 tests and still get UL
registered. UL does not care whether a protector does protection. UL
is only concerned that it does not burn down the house. So, a
grossly undersized plug-in protector disconnects protector circuits
faster. If that thermal fuse not trip fast enough, scary pictures
exist:
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/

If a grossly undersized protector completely fails even on the
tiniest of surges (as indicated by that OK light), then the naive
consumer will say "My surge protector sacrificed itself to save my
computer". Nonsense. Protection inside every computer saved that
computer. Plug-in protector disconnected its protection as fast as
possible to avoid those scary pictures.

UL does not care whether a protector provides any protection.
Protector circuits can disconnect ASAP - provide no protection - and
still obtain UL approval. UL's only concern is human life - not surge
protection. Threats to electronics are irrelevant. Protector can
completely fail and still get a UL1449 approval - as long as it does
not create those scary pictures during UL tests.

Sometimes the emergency backup circuit does not disconnect protector
fast enough. Most every fire company has seen what then results -
those scary pictures. Best is to install one properly sized and
properly earth 'whole house' protector. Have effective protection,
save money, and don't have those scary pictures. Have what even the
IEEE recommends - once we get facts that Bud ignores.

 

[bud--]

The guide says plug-in protectors are an easiest solution. Then the
guide says why the easiest solutoin does not provide effective
protection.

..
Poor w_. He probably really believes that.
..

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
..

No numeric
specs claim protection.

..
Provided long ago. Poor w_ just repeats all the same lies - a la Goebbels.

But poor w_ still can’t find a link to another lunatic that agrees that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Even on the internet no one is
as stupid.

And poor w_ still can’t answer 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?

 

[w_tom]

   Sure follow Tom's advice and continue to have equipment destroyed by
surges from other sources.  He is a meat popsicle, dead from the neck
up.  He is the ultimate USENET idiot troll. He doesn't understand basic
physics or even basic electronics. Transmission lines?  No way!  

Where does Michael Terrell post a solution for the OP? He does not.
Michael will attack one who has exposed him previously as technically
naive. Michael cannot provide the OP with a solution. That requires
knowledge and experience. Michael does not even try to post a
solution. Michael remembers being exposed for not understanding some
basic electrical concepts. Dissipating surge energy harmlessly in
earth? Also too complex. Transmissions lines - characteristic
impedance - is also totally irrelevant to surge protection and the
OP's question. An electrically knowledgeable Michael would have known
that.

How many posts by salesman and TV repairmen without a solution for
the OP?