Bad voltage spikes

Page 2 of 3  
On 6/22/2013 7:10 AM, westom wrote:

When I was doing a lot of residential HVAC work with my late friend GB, our rural customers were having problems with power surges blowing out capacitors and other parts of of their HVAC systems. We started installing hard wired surge protection on their systems and it eliminated those type failures. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:28:01 AM UTC-4, The Daring Dufas wrote:

No.... A point of use protector that works? Why that's impossible according to Tom. You should have seen more destruction, caused by the protector, according to him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/22/2013 9:19 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

********Trim Da Phat********

Well, first of all, we always replaced capacitors with those of a higher voltage rating. But the hard wired protectors right there on the condensing unit and indoor furnace protected them. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/22/2013 6:28 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

In the event of a strong surge that is earthed, or a near lightning strike, the pad under a compressor/condenser can be at a far different potential than the building electrical "ground". The compressor is at the potential of the pad and the wires at the potential of the electrical "ground". The difference can be high enough to damage the compressor. It is described in the IEEE surge guide page 34. The guide describes surge protection at the compressor, as in your post above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many years go this guy wrote up an magazine article, then a book. It's not so much for house protection, but equipment protection, and noise protection. It's a bible. Good read.
(Amazon.com product link shortened)
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Protection on incoming lines is the 'whole house' solution. Protection in a line card is equivalent to protection found inside all household appliances. All appliances (and line cards) already contain protection that would otherwise be on its adjacent power wire. All appliances (and line cards) have best protection on lines entering the facility - properly earthed 'whole house' protection.
Tiered protection strategy exists when a consumer earths a 'whole house' protector and nothing more. An earthed 'whole house' protector is his "secondary" protection. Each layer of protection is defined by earth ground - not by the protector. A homeowner's "primary" protection layer is elsewhere. Consumers should also inspect their 'primary' protection layer. A picture demonstrates that most important component: http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Protection is always defined by where energy dissipates. Always. An effective protector makes a connection to what does protection. The only solution always found in every facility that cannot have damage. Including telco switching centers, radio and TV broadcast stations, and even munitions dumps. The solution that rarely exists in homes because so many foolishly think that power strip protects from the other and typically destructive surge. It doesn't.
I never said MOVs adjacent to appliances are useless. They do a maybe 0.2% additional protection. Many manufactures stopped putting MOVs inside appliances. Since other internal protection is often hardier. And since internal MOVs do little to protect from the other and typically destructive surge.
All appliances (and line cards) by design already have superior protection. The informed homeowner is concerned with another and typically destructive transient. A transient that can overwhelm existing protection. That transient can only be diverted by properly earthed protectors. A 'whole house' solution is even necessary to protect 'point of connection' protectors ... that otherwise only protect from something that is typically not destructive.
So yes, the adjacent protector does maybe an additional 0.2% protection. And the 'whole house' protector must still exist. Spend about $1 per protected appliance for about 99.5% protection - one properly earthed 'whole house' protector to protect from all type of surges. Then spend $25 or $80 per appliance to protect mostly from a type of surge that typically causes no damage. Yes, install a tiered solution. But that is done with protection already inside each appliance, by what is required (and typically missing) in most homes (a properly earthed 'whole house' protector), and the already existing 'primary' protection layer.
Protectors without the short connection to earth do not and do not claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. That other surge is typically made irrelevant by what already exists even in dimmer switches, CFL light bulbs, computers, clocks, the furnace and air conditioner, and even smoke detectors.
Informed consumers are better advised to direct money into what is more important - better earthing. And either a wire connection or a 'whole house' protector connection to what actually does the protection - earth ground.
Page 42 figure 8: The adjacent protector is too far from earth ground and too close to appliances. So it earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through any nearby appliance. We have seen this often (in part because we did this stuff). Distance between a protector and electronics INCREASES protection. Distance from protector to earth ground is a most critical parameter for effective protection ... from the other and typically destructive surge. Even power strip protectors need protection only possible by earthing one 'whole house' protector.
Excellent information and great examples of problems. Utilities by now should have figured out a better way to protect ground wires and ground rods than plastic or wooden "protectors" and hose clamps and they ought to be required to maintain them. I suppose it will take some substantial human damage and more than a few lawsuits for someone to write a "standard" and mandated compliance. Too bad.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:44:30 AM UTC-4, Tomsic wrote:

What utilities are using hose clamps to secure earth ground wires? As far as standards, they already exist. NEC, for example, defines acceptable grounding methods, materials, practices, etc. PS: Hose clamps are not allowed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:44:30 AM UTC-4, Tomsic wrote:

Standard already exists. But some utilities have a history of worrying mor e about profits and less about the product. New Jersey assigned a PUC comm issioner only for First Energy due to repeated reliability violations.
One was not fixing compromised earth grounds. Some municipalities even h ad to create ordinances. A $5000 per day fine every day someone was shocke d in their swimming pool or jacuzzi. Only then did First Energy permit the ir linemen to fix earth grounds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:10:16 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:

Then you agree that this, which you posted, is untrue:
"A 'whole house' protector is the only solution always found in every facil ity that cannot have damage. "
Protection in a line card is equivalent to protection found inside all hou sehold appliances. All appliances (and line cards) already contain protect ion that would otherwise be on its adjacent power wire. All appliances (an d line cards) have best protection on lines entering the facility - properl y earthed 'whole house' protection.
Protection on a line card, as I said, is part of a TIERED protection strategy. A strategy that can include plug-in surge protectors. See the IEEE guide. Also, still waiting all these years for the answer to how can that surge protection on a line card or inside an appliance be effective surge protectors, when there is no direct earth ground? Yet the same components, MOVs, placed inside a plug-in surge protector according to you, offer no protection or can damage eqpt. Explain that contradiction.

' protector and nothing more.
Now you're lying. Look at the IEEE guide. Bud gave the link for all to see. It talks about tiered protection and it is *not* just one whole house surge protector. Who should folks believe? IEEE and NIST or you?
An earthed 'whole house' protector is his "secondary" protection.
Each layer of protection is defined by earth ground - not by the protector . A homeowner's "primary" protection layer is elsewhere.
Really? Where would that be?
Consumers should also inspect their 'primary' protection layer. A picture demonstrates that most important component:

Tell that to Boeing. Where do they dissipate a lightning strike that hits a 777? Yet the aircraft is protected.
And tell that to yourself too, because in this very post, you acknowledge that appliance manufacturers put surge protection inside appliances. Where does that energy dissipate with no direct, nearby, earth ground?
An effective protector makes a connection to what does protection. The on ly solution always found in every facility that cannot have damage. Includ ing telco switching centers, radio and TV broadcast stations, and even muni tions dumps. The solution that rarely exists in homes because so many fool ishly think that power strip protects from the other and typically destruct ive surge. It doesn’t.

0.2% >additional protection.
Good grief dude, are you suffering from memory loss? Bud will have a good laugh at that one too, I'm sure.
> Many manufactures stopped putting MOVs inside appliances. Since other i nternal protection is often hardier.
Which ones would those be? Please show us some examples.
And since internal MOVs do little to protect from the other and typically destructive surge.

Can they protect from all surges? No. Are they useful as part of a tiered protection strategy? Yes. That's why the are in virtually every appliance. The same is true of plug-in surge protectors, which use devices, MOVs, with a lot more capacity than those in the appliance. Which is better? Have a plug-in surge protector connected to a TV that has a medium size MOV in it, or just rely on the smaller MOV in the TV? And remember, that MOVs degrade a bit with each surge. Would you rather have a good portion of any surge go through the $25 plug-in and then have the $2000 TV deal with the rest, or all of it go to the TV?
Tiered:
Whole house Plug-ins Inside the appliance

ion. The informed homeowner is concerned with another and typically destru ctive transient. A transient that can overwhelm existing protection. That transient can only be diverted by properly earthed protectors.
Then why do the above line cards have surge protection at all? According to you, it's worthless because the facility already has protection on the lines where they enter the building. Why do you continue to contradict yourself?
A 'whole house' solution is even necessary to protect 'point of connection ' protectors ... that otherwise only protect from something that is typical ly not destructive.

. And the 'whole house' protector must still exist. Spend about $1 per pr otected appliance for about 99.5% protection - one properly earthed 'whole house' protector to protect from all type of surges. Then spend $25 or $80 per appliance to protect mostly from a type of surge that typically causes no damage. Yes, install a tiered solution. But that is done with protect ion already inside each appliance, by what is required (and typically missi ng) in most homes (a properly earthed 'whole house' protector), and the alr eady existing 'primary' protection layer.

The nonsense repeated, because you're on what amounts to a religous crusade.

m to protect from the typically destructive surge. That other surge is typ ically made irrelevant by what already exists even in dimmer switches, CFL light bulbs, computers, clocks, the furnace and air conditioner, and even s moke detectors.

How is that possible? According to you there is no protection unless those smoke detectors are connected directly to a ground rod? And again, which would you prefer deal with any surges that are coming in on the cord of a $2000 TV. The small MOV in the TV, or the much bigger one in the $25 surge protector?

important - better earthing. And either a wire connection or a 'whole hous e' protector connection to what actually does the protection - earth ground .

Informed consumers should read the IEEE and other links provided by Bud. They say you're wrong.

and too close to appliances. So it earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through any nearby appliance. We have seen this often (in part because we did this stuff). Distance between a protector and electronics INCREASES p rotection. Distance from protector to earth ground is a most critical para meter for effective protection ... from the other and typically destructive surge. Even power strip protectors need protection only possible by earth ing one 'whole house' protector.
No link provided, so we have no figure or context, just your interpretation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:18:17 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

As I have said repeatedly, anything that a plug-in protector might do is al ready done better inside appliances (or line card). Please read what I pos ted. Not what you want to read.
We were not discussing solutions that come standard in all appliances (ev en dimmer switches and GFCIs). We are discussing a $3 power strip with ten cent protector parts that sell at $25, $40 or $100 for obscene profits. Th at protector is tiniest protection without a 'whole house' protector. And does little when a 'whole house' protector is properly earthed.
I am not discussing in black and white extremist rhetoric that you are re posting. Why spend so much money on 'point of connection' protectors when that protection exists inside each appliance. Where is money better spent? To upgrade what best defines protection - the single point earth ground.
One method for even better protection is Ufer grounds. Because a protect or is only as effective as its earth ground. But again, that does not say the plug-in protector is useless. Just not cost effective as you would hav e others believe.
The other and effective protector connects surge energy low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth ground. It is not 100% protection. But the least expensive solution does most all protection. IEEE even provides pe rspective: "a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct st rokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per 6000 years ... P rotection at 99.5% is the practical choice."
For most homeowners, that is sufficient. For facilities that cannot have damage, that is essential. Facilities that cannot have damage always use a 'whole house' solution. Even 'point of connection' protectors need that protection to avert house fires.
Why are you trying to sell plug-in protector without a 'whole house' solu tion? Why are you promoting that scam?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:52:25 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:

already done better inside appliances (or line card).
Just because you repeat something that is wrong or a lie, doesn't make it true.

We've all read what you've posted, many times over the years.

even dimmer switches and GFCIs). We are discussing a $3 power strip with te n cent protector parts that sell at $25, $40 or $100 for obscene profits. That protector is tiniest protection without a 'whole house' protector. An d does little when a 'whole house' protector is properly earthed.

What comes standard in an appliance is just one small part of the discussion. And if you look at the price of components, you will find that the MOVs inside a plug-in surge protector don't cost 10 cents, they cost substantially more. The ones inside the appliance, while costing less, aren't 10 cents.

reposting.
Good grief! You are exactly that. I'm not the one here on a religious crusade against plug-in surge protectors. Another curious aspect. I post here on a wide variety of topics, almost daily. Why is it that we only see you here when a post has "surge protector" in it? If that isn't a sign of someone obsessed with one issue, I don't know what is.
Why spend so much money on 'point of connection' protectors when that prot ection exists inside each appliance.
So that if a 2000V surge comes along, it first arrives at the $25 plug-in protector, it starts to clamp the voltages, starts to shunt it to ground, instead of the $2000 TV. Got it now?
Where is money better spent? To upgrade what best defines protection - t he single point earth ground.

Nobody is arguing that good grounding practices, a whole house surge protector, is not the first line of defense. But your position is like saying, locking the doors is all that one needs do to secure a house and having a safe, window bars, hiding valuables, etc is a waste.

I don't believe that is true either. While they make good grounds, I haven't seen anything that says you can't have equal protection with a ground rod in suitable soil.
Because a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
The lie repeated. Still waiting for that explanation. Appliances have MOVs for surge protection. The same devices, just smaller, as found in plub-in surge protectors. So, how the hell can they work with out the appliance being directly connected to an earth ground?
But again, that does not say the plug-in protector is useless. Just not cost effective as you would have others believe.

So, which is it? You say they are worthless. You say they actually cause damage. Now you suddenly say they are not useless.

ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth ground. It is not 100% protection. But t he least expensive solution does most all protection. IEEE even provides perspective: "a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per 6000 years ... Protection at 99.5% is the practical choice."

Again, you're telling us what IEEE says, with no link. Funny thing that.

ve damage, that is essential. Facilities that cannot have damage always us e a 'whole house' solution.
Yes as part of a TIERED STRATEGY. It's *not* the only surge protection. Just like IEEE recommends.
Even 'point of connection' protectors need that protection to avert house fires.

lution? Why are you promoting that scam?
Why is it that when you have no links, no credible sources to support your claims, that you resort to accusing anyone who does, of being a paid saleperson for or connected to a surge protector company?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net "Just because you repeat something that is wrong or a lie, doesn't make it true."
Fox News became the most-watched cable news outlet in America by repeating shit. lmao!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 2:58:14 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

You've made the accusation. So, now it should be easy to provide us with some examples where Fox News lies or repeats something that isn't true. We're waiting, but I'll bet like almost all who slam Fox, you can't back it up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 2:41:40 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I foolishly assumed you had basic electrical knowledge. You are foolishly assuming normal mode currents. Destructive surges are longitudinal mode cu rrents.
With basic knowledge, you know why surges (including direct lightning strik es) cause no damage in munitions dumps. Ufer grounds. Proven protection. Why do you know otherwise? Apparently you do not even grasp some basic ele ctrical concepts.
You assumed a current incoming (ie left to right) on one AC wire is also returning (right to left) on another AC wire. Please learn basic electrica l concepts rather than posting assumptions and disparaging comments. A des tructive transients is incoming on any or all AC wires (ie left to right). And outgoing destructively through the appliance in that same direction to earth. Your plug-in protector sees near zero voltage during a current that only flows in one direction on all wires. That same current that creates near zero voltage in a protector also creates maybe 3000 volts destructivel y through an adjacent appliance. Overwhelms protection inside that applian ce.
Page 42 Figure 8 of an NIST document demonstrates same. A protector too f ar from earth ground must earth that surge destructively via an adjacent TV . Why does the NIST show 8000 volts in that TV when at protector supposedl y limits voltage to 330 volts? Because the protector sees near zero voltag e while the TV is damaged by 8000 volts. Now I understand why you do not u nderstand page 42 figure 8. You do not even know the difference between no rmal and longitudinal mode currents.
A destructive current created no voltage across a protector while creatin g 8000 volts destructively in the adjacent TV. Page 42 figure 8. An adjace nt protector did nothing to protect nearby appliances. It was too far from earth ground. It only claims to protect from a different type of transien t - that typically causes no damage.
This electrical concept is so basic as to be taught to first semester eng ineers. Common knowledge says destructive surges are current mode transient . Not voltage mode (ie 2000 volts) as you repeatedly assume.
Furthermore, if the protector was at 2000 volts, then it was destroyed - a potential fire hazard. You did not even know that?
Either current is harmlessly absorbed in earth BEFORE entering a building . Or current goes hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Repeate d not because you will suddenly grasp it. You do not even cite one spec nu mber or electrical fact. Why deny what is common knowledge among professio nal? Basic electrical concepts were not learned. As demonstrated by your protector at 2000 volts.
When facilities suffer damage, professional fix a primary reason for damag e. Defective earthing.
For example, a case study of a Nebraska radio station where grounds were compromised due to same technical ignorance. How did they eliminate damage ? No protectors. Instead the reason for lightning damage was upgraded, re stored, or installed at each tier. Each tier (layer of protection) is defi ned by an earth ground. In this case study, they even upgraded the 'primar y' surge protection layer - the electric company's earth ground: http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/nebraska.html
We have been through your denials, insufficient electrical knowledge, no spec numbers, and insults repeatedly. You do not even understand the diffe rence between a current source and a voltage source. And why that is releva nt. You even assumed a protector works on a 2000 volt transient. Somehow know a plug-in protector does more when even the manufacturer does not clai m that protection.
If a plug-in protector did everything as you claimed, then manufacturer s pecification numbers were posted. No numbers provided for one simple reaso n. Lack of technical knowledge? Even the manufacturer does not claim to p rotect from another and typically destructive surge. You do not even under stand the difference between longitudinal and normal mode currents - as dem onstrated on page 42 figure 8.
A report from an AT&T conference discusses that. Describes why plug-in p rotectors have limited abilities and why the 'whole house' solution does so much more (despite your repeated denials): [quote]

or

o

e

e

er

[/quote]
Why do professional discuss earthing of a 'whole house' protector as crit ical - despite your incessant denials? Why do you claim a plug-in protecto r is a superior solution when professionals state otherwise ... with number s?
That last post says why. You do not even know the difference between a c urrent and voltage mode transient. Instead post mocking insults - as if th at proves electrical knowledge. Even basics demonstrated on page 42 figure 8 escape you. Somehow 2000 volts on a protector is protection? Please l earn some basic electrical concepts.
Professionals state: a protector is only as effective as its earth ground . A plug-in protector does what already exists inside each appliance. And it sees near zero voltage when a typically destructive transient (ie 8000 v olts) overwhelms protection inside that appliance. Understanding requires basic concepts such as normal verse longitudinal mode..
Of course you could, for once, post that plug-in protector spec that clai m to protect from the other and typically destructive surge. Never posted in posts that only belittle – as if that proves expertise. Manufacturer does not claim protection from typically destructive surges. Only claims t o protect from surges already made irrelevant by what is inside every appli ance. So you will post more nasty replies. To mask a reality – you do n ot even understand relevant electrical concepts. Insults only prove your k nowledge banks are bankrupt.
Of course you could surprise everyone. Post a plug-in protector specific ation that claims protection from each type of surge. Even the AT&T report says why that will never happen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/23/2013 7:14 PM, westom wrote:

Westom does not understand the excellent example from the IEEE (not NIST) surge guide. (I posted a link to both surge guides.)
Anyone with minimal mental abilities (which does not include westom) can discover what the IEEE surge guide says in this example: - A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it. - "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." - The illustration "shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors"
It is simply a lie that the plug-in protector in the IEEE example damages the second TV.
In the example, a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the earthing system at the power service that is far too long. With minimal mental abilities westom would have read that "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
And with minimal mental abilities westom's would have figured out his favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO protection.
All this has been posted many times but westom just ignores anything that does not fit his very limited beliefs about surge protection.

We have been through westom's denials, insufficient electrical knowledge, and insults repeatedly.
Westom googles for "surge" to spread his beliefs. He has joined an astonishing number of forums. Unfortunately some of westom's beliefs are complete nonsense. It is like talking to a mormon missionary.
Simple questions westom is not able to answer: - Why do the only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge guide use plug-in protectors? - Why does the NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest solution"?     - Why does the NIST surge guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector? - Why does the NIST surge guide say "Plug-in...The easiest of all for anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to choose?'" - Why does the IEEE surge guide says for distant entry points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

Manufacturer specs have been posted by many people. They are always ignored, just like westom ignores anything that does not fit his very limited beliefs about surge protection.
> Even the manufacturer does not claim to protect from another > and typically destructive surge.
Complete nonsense.
Some manufacturers even have protected equipment warranties.

Professionals state: plug-in protectors do not work primarily by earthing (IEEE surge guide, starting page 30). And plug-in protectors primarily work by limiting the voltage from each wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. The voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment.
Just another thing westom ignores.

One of westom's favorite lies.
Another is that service panel protectors provide 99+% protection. The 99+% figures come from the IEEE "Green" book and are for lightning rods. They have absolutely nothing to do with surge protectors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:14:15 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:

y assuming normal mode currents. Destructive surges are longitudinal mode currents.

I assumed no such thing.

ikes) cause no damage in munitions dumps. Ufer grounds. Proven protection . Why do you know otherwise? Apparently you do not even grasp some basic e lectrical concepts.

Funny that what I grasp is consistent with IEEE and NIST. And they say plug-in surge protectors should be used as part of a tiered protection strategy.

o returning (right to left) on another AC wire. Please learn basic electri cal concepts rather than posting assumptions and disparaging comments. A d estructive transients is incoming on any or all AC wires (ie left to right) . And outgoing destructively through the appliance in that same direction t o earth.
Now current only flows left to right? Good grief!
Your plug-in protector sees near zero voltage during a current that only f lows in one direction on all wires. That same current that creates near ze ro voltage in a protector also creates maybe 3000 volts destructively throu gh an adjacent appliance. Overwhelms protection inside that appliance.
Nonsense. If a TV is connected to a surge protector and both the AC wires and the Cable TV going into it run through the surge protector, how could the TV see a 3000V surge, while the surge protector sees nothing....

far from earth ground must earth that surge destructively via an adjacent TV. Why does the NIST show 8000 volts in that TV when at protector suppose dly limits voltage to 330 volts? Because the protector sees near zero volt age while the TV is damaged by 8000 volts. Now I understand why you do not understand page 42 figure 8. You do not even know the difference between normal and longitudinal mode currents.

Good grief! The discussion of figure 8 that you talk about above ends with:
"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
It doesn't say that plug-ins don't work. It doesn't say that they cause damage. It says that in a situation where you have two TVs, if you don't have a surge protector on the second TV, it's not protectd.
Why do you try to use a reference and totally ignore the overall message that the reference presents. In this case, that message is, that plug-in protectors do work.

ing 8000 volts destructively in the adjacent TV. Page 42 figure 8. An adja cent protector did nothing to protect nearby appliances. It was too far fr om earth ground. It only claims to protect from a different type of transi ent - that typically causes no damage.

See above

ngineers. Common knowledge says destructive surges are current mode transie nt. Not voltage mode (ie 2000 volts) as you repeatedly assume.

You must have gone to a special college where they brainwashed you on surge protectors, starting first semester. The rest of us were busy taking calculus, physics, chemistry, and maybe on EE course on circuit theory.

a potential fire hazard. You did not even know that?

That's a lie.

ng. Or current goes hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Repea ted not because you will suddenly grasp it. You do not even cite one spec number or electrical fact. Why deny what is common knowledge among profess ional? Basic electrical concepts were not learned. As demonstrated by you r protector at 2000 volts.

Both Bud and I cited the IEEE guide and NIST. Both say you're wrong.
Speaking of the requirement for an earth ground, without which there is no possibility of lightning protection, better give Boeing a call. Their planes are fully protected, yet they don't trail a copper wire connected to a ground rod.

age. Defective earthing.

You'd fix a primary reason as a surge protector, no matter if a bulldozer destroyed the building.

e compromised due to same technical ignorance. How did they eliminate dama ge? No protectors. Instead the reason for lightning damage was upgraded, restored, or installed at each tier. Each tier (layer of protection) is de fined by an earth ground.
The IEEE and NIST say you're wrong.
In this case study, they even upgraded the 'primary' surge protection laye r - the electric company's earth ground:

l

o spec numbers, and insults repeatedly. You do not even understand the dif ference between a current source and a voltage source.
Sigh. Yes I do. And I know about Norton equivalents and Thevenin equivalents. I learned that in college while you were apparently being brainwashed about surge protectors. As for surge protectors being in college curriculum, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a college that has that in their courses.
And why that is relevant. You even assumed a protector works on a 2000 vol t transient. Somehow know a plug-in protector does more when even the manu facturer does not claim that protection.
Sigh, of course surge protector is capable of handling a 2000V surge.

specification numbers were posted. No numbers provided for one simple rea son. Lack of technical knowledge? Even the manufacturer does not claim to protect from another and typically destructive surge. You do not even und erstand the difference between longitudinal and normal mode currents - as d emonstrated on page 42 figure 8.

Sigh, no numbers posted because no numbers were requested. If you like, go look at them yourself.

protectors have limited abilities and why the 'whole house' solution does so much more (despite your repeated denials):

p

ctor

s

ll

to

e

ere

he

s

ut

t

the

e

ther

b

AN

e.

s,

ut

Lack of a link, so that we can read the whole thing in context, again noted. You took the NIST document and completely lied about what it says. You selected one diagram, one part of the document and tried to use it above. Anyone can go to page 42, read it and see that it ends with them saying to protect the TV that had no surge protector, you just need to use one. So, if you lie that way, why would anyone trust your random excerpts of anything?

itical - despite your incessant denials? Why do you claim a plug-in protec tor is a superior solution when professionals state otherwise ... with numb ers?

NIST, IEEE are professionals and they say you're nuts.

current and voltage mode transient. Instead post mocking insults - as if that proves electrical knowledge. Even basics demonstrated on page 42 figu re 8 escape you.
The part that escaped you was that it concludes with the statement that to protect TV2 that was damaged by a surge, you add a plug-in surge protector to it.
Somehow 2000 volts on a protector is protection? Please learn some basic electrical concepts.

nd. A plug-in protector does what already exists inside each appliance.
Again, how the hell do MOVs inside an appliance provide surge protection, when much larger and effective MOVs inside a plug-in protector do not. Does your tV come with a built-in earth ground?
And it sees near zero voltage when a typically destructive transient (ie 8 000 volts) overwhelms protection inside that appliance. Understanding requ ires basic concepts such as normal verse longitudinal mode..

aim to protect from the other and typically destructive surge. Never poste d in posts that only belittle – as if that proves expertise
No belittling, no attacks, just the facts. Unless you think it's belittling that I pointed out that the only time you show up in AHR is when someone mentions surge protector.
Manufacturer does not claim protection from typically destructive surges. Only claims to protect from surges already made irrelevant by what is insi de every appliance. So you will post more nasty replies. To mask a realit y – you do not even understand relevant electrical concepts. Insults onl y prove your knowledge banks are bankrupt.

Yawn...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I moved in, the power company informed me I had a protector, and wanted to know if I wanted to keep it. Something like $6-7 month. I don't think anyone came to remove it, and I don't think I had one to begin with. scam ?
Greg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/20/2013 7:13 PM, gregz wrote:

You should call your power company and ask them what they'll cover in the way of damage if you lease a meter mounted surge arrester from them. $7.00 per month sounds like cheep insurance to me. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:45:08 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@I.don't.have.a.clue.com wrote:

Here in this country we have frequent outages. Many ppl here use inverters, or in Spanish 'inversors'. Good for the times there is no electricity and for surge protection.
They are great in theory... but they suck up a lot of power, especially if one or more batteries are not up to par... If a battery has a problem holdi ng a charge, then it will just keep sucking up electricity trying to charge ... mucho dollars my friend... which is why even though I have one, I don't use it (our electricity has been pretty good around here lately).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:45:08 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@I.don't.have.a.clue.com wrote:

Here in this country we have frequent outages. Many ppl here use inverters, or in Spanish 'inversors', usually using four 12v batteries. Good for the times there is no electricity and for surge protection.
They are great in theory... but they suck up a lot of power, especially if one or more batteries are not up to par... If a battery has a problem holdi ng a charge, then it will just keep sucking up electricity trying to charge ... mucho dollars my friend... which is why even though I have one, I don't use it (our electricity has been pretty good around here lately).
Another problem is that the batteries go out rather frequently. A car batte ry typically lasts 3 years... but invertor batteries are always in use, so they only last a year at best.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.