westom said:
Your job is to promote plug-in protectors.
Poor westom just keeps repeating the same lies, just like Josef Goebbels.
If he had valid technical arguments he would not have to try to
discredit those that expose his drivel.
My only association with surge suppressors is that I have 2 of them.
You
cannot even post any spec numbers that define protection from each
type of surge.
"Each type of surge" is more nonsense. SquareD, amongst others, does not
have specs for "each type of surge".
I provided a link to the specs I have provided in many threads -always
ignored by westom, just like he ignores anything that conflicts with his
religious belief in earthing.
Apparently poor westom believes plug-in suppressors do not work, so he
believes specs cannot possibly exist.
Destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules. Where does
that energy dissipate? Bud says that energy just magically
disappears.
Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from seeing what has been
said in this thread, and numerous other threads.
For incoming power wires, at about 6kV there is arc over from service
busbars to the enclosure. After the arc stabilized the arc is hundreds
of volts. The enclosure is connected to the earthing electrodes, so this
dumps the vast majority of the incoming surge energy to earth. The
neutral (in the US) is also always tied to the system ground at the
service, so energy coming in on the neutral is directly earthed.
Apparently that is all magic for westom.
For a plug-in suppressor, the impedance of the branch circuit wiring
greatly limits the current that can reach the suppressor. That greatly
limits the energy that can reach the suppressor. NIST surge guru
Martzloff looked at the energy that could reach the suppressor and was
surprised that it was 35 joules or less. In most of his tests it was
under 1 joule. That is with service surges up to the maximum that there
is any reasonable probability of occurring.
As Sjouke wrote, the MOV dissipates an energy equal to the clamp voltage
times the current times the time. For a plug-in suppressor the current
is very limited by the branch circuit impedance. And the time is very
short - well under 100 microseconds. Fuses or circuit breakers do not
provide protection because they are nowhere near fast enough - they
won't open during a surge.
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing a surge - that
reason poor westom believes they do not work. The IEEE surge guide
explains how they work (starting pdf page40). They clamp the voltage on
all wires to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage between all wires
going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment.
Service panel suppressors also work by clamping the voltage - from hot
wires to ground/earthing electrode (and hot-to-hot). Because the current
can be up to 10,000A per hot (essentially zero probability of higher
current, at least for houses) they can dissipate significant energy. But
the vast majority of the energy is dissipated in the earth by the
service earth electrode connection. The largest surges (lightning) are
under 100 microseconds. Suppressors are readily available that will
provide protection. With thousands of amps to the earthing electrode,
the potential of the building "ground" can rise far above "absolute"
earth potential.
Neither service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors protect by
absorbing the surge energy. But in the process of protecting, some of
the energy is absorbed.
MOVs are fast enough to protect from the fastest surge. And if there was
an extremely fast rise time it would be lowered by the impedance of the
source wiring.
All of the above is from NIST expert Martzloff, or other experts in the
field.
westom ignores it all.
Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a surge earthed 8000 volts
destructively through a nearby TV.
The lie repeated. Poor westom tries to make an example that explains
protection say the opposite.
The plug-in suppressor in this IEEE surge guide example protects the TV
connected to it. It lowers the surge voltage at a second TV, although
its job is to protect the equipment connected to it. It is a lie that
the suppressor at TV1 damages TV2.
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."
Why?
The house did not earth via a 'whole
house' protector.
In the IEEE example the surge comes in on the cable service, and high
voltage results from a ground wire that is too long. westomn's favored
service panel suppressor would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
IEEE says, for distant entrance points, that "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.
westom's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka
reality).
westom is the poster child for cognitive dissonance.
Still never explained - why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day
when they are hit by lightning?
He is paid to
promote plug-in protectors.
The lie repeated.
But still never seen - any reliable source that agrees with westom that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
The IEEE guide, in particular, is really an excellent source of
information from a reliable source. I really recommend anyone who is
interested in surge protection read it.
