"chain" surge suppressers?

Page 3 of 4  
wrote:

And no one here is disagreeing that a whole house surge protector, properly installed, is the best first line defense for surge protection. Of course it's best to deal with the surge before it gets into the house.
The problem is, W_, with his religious beliefs, denies and rants that plug-ins can't offer any protection and in fact, actual create damage. Plug-ins can offer protection by clamping voltages coming into a protected appliance. And how about people who can't install a whole house protector? For example, those living in a rental property or an apartment? Clearly using plug-ins can be effective. Everyone here seems to agree, except W_, who's stuck on his religious beliefs.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jul 14, 9:09 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

w_tom never said what trader only assumes. Plug-in protectors provide ineffective protection at massively high prices. Plug-in protectors do protect from one type of surge - that is typically not destructive. Internal appliance protection makes that surge irrelevant. Plug-in protectors offer no protection from the type of surge that typically causes appliance damage. The other destructive surge overwhelms protection inside appliances.
If a protector shunts (connects, clamps) wires together during a surge, well, one wire short to earth ground means protection. However if none of those wires are connected short to single point earth ground, then the surge voltage is same on all wires; surge is now provided more paths to find earth ground. Page 42 Figure 8.
Every responsible citation is quite blunt about what a protector must do - divert surge energy into earth. Surges that don't enter a building don't create damage. Surges that do enter a building find all kinds of destructive paths to earth.
Meanwhile, the surge that a plug-in protector might protect from? That surge is also made irrelevant by a ''whole house' protector.
What does the plug-in protector do? A $3 power strip with some ten cent parts does protect from a surge made irrelevant by protection inside appliances, and by one 'whole house' protector. What does that plug-in protector accomplish? Higher profits.
trader already read a kludge solution for apartment dwellers whose landlord will not install a tenant provided 'whole house' protector. Take a power strip of maximum joules. Cut off its six foot power cord as short as practicable since every foot of wire only subverts protection. Plug that protector into an outlet closest to the breaker box. Hopefully that protector will have some (obviously inferior) earthing. Now an ineffective plug-in protector is kludged - attempts to do what effective 'whole house' protectors accomplish. To be effective, the protector must divert the typically destructive surge into earth. Furthermore, move electronic equipment to outlets farthest from the breaker box. That separation also increases electronics protection.
Even a kludge solution puts a protector as close as possible to earth ground and distant from electronics. However a far superior solution (a 'whole house' protector and better earthing) is also tens or 100 times less money. Money wasted on plug-in protectors is better spent upgrading the earthing. A protector is only as effective as its earthing.
Yes, plug-in protectors can protect from one type of surge - that typically is not destructive. You would recommend spending tens or 100 times more money for a protector that does not protect from the other and typically destructive type surge?
Why does a plug-in protector not list protection in numerical specs? Plug-in protectors do not protect from the type of surge that typically causes damage. If does protect from a type of surge made irrelevant by protection inside appliances and made irrelevant by the 'whole house' protector. trader has been too busy insulting rather than read what was posted. As another notes, effective protection (that also costs massively less money) means keeping surge currents out of every building and dissipiated in earth. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. The required religious mantra.
The IEEE guide explains, for anyone who can think, that plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. They do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains that earthing occurs elsewhere in the system.
Still never seen - a source 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"? – Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." - Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE guide example?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

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

The guide also explains that if that energy is not earthed, then energy will find earth destructively via household appliances. Plug- in protectors without a properly earthed 'whole house' protector can even contribute to damage of adjacent appliances.
But that knowledge would harm profits. Bud is a sales promoter for plug-in protectors. Bud again posts insults to protect those profit margins.
‘Clamping to nothing’, according to Bud, makes that surge energy just magically disappear. Energy does not disappear. Surge current must find earth ground. If not properly earthed at the service entrance, then that surge current will find many paths to earth inside the building. Page 42 Figure 8 - surge obtained earth ground 8000 volts destructively through a TV. Protector did nothing but make that possible. Protector was too close to appliances AND did not have the ‘always necessary’ short connection to earth. Bud calls that 8000 volt damage “effective protection”.
If Bud was honest, then Bud would post manufacturer numeric specs that claim protection. Bud refuses. Bud cannot post what even the manufacturer will not claim. It does not have that short connection to earth. It cannot clamp surges harmlessly into earth. It does not even claim to provide that protection. It ‘clamps to nothing’. Bud even ignores demands for those numeric specifications. Bud cannot post was does not exist - effective protection. Profits are at risk.
Bud is a sales promoter. Obscene profits are at risk if consumers got informed. Buy and earth one 'whole house' protector. Waste no money on plug-in protectors. Have protection that is massively superior to what $3000 of plug-in protectors might accomplish. Bud would have you spend tens or 100 times more money for his product - that does not even claim to provide that protection.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. From the IEEE Standards - only place that IEEE makes recommendations in 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding':

Somehow by posting insults and providing no numeric specifications, Bud proves 'clamping to nothing' works? IEEE says otherwise. But popular myths are easily believed just like Saddam's WMDs. Which does the lurker believe? The facts - such as where does that energy get dissipated? Of half truth and insults from a plug-in protector sales promoter?
Provides elsewhere in this discussion is an answer to the OP’s question about what is and is not sufficient earthing. Earthing provides protection which is why so many professionals discuss earthing (not plug-in protectors) extensively. Earth is where the surge gets dissipated harmlessly rather than inside household appliances. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why all high reliability facilities put their protectors close to earth ground and separated from better protected electronics.
Plug-in protectors do not make that energy magically disappear. Effective protection earths before a surge can enter the building. Protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Protection that is 99+% effective. Where does the plug-in protector even claim that protection? Nothing claimed. No earth ground means no effective protection. Reality does not use insults as proof.
An honest Bud would have posted those manufacturer specs that claim protection. He cannot post what does not exist.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. Complete bullcrap. Lacking valid technical arguments poor w_ has to try to discredit anyone who exposes his drivel. .

. Poor w_ is insulted by reality. .

. Posted often and ignored. For example a few months ago on this newsgroup: http://tinyurl.com/6alnza .

. The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Ho-hum - read the quote at the top. .

. The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.
Poor w_’s religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.
And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in suppressors are effective. .

. Never explained: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? .

. w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the corresponding complete lack of sources that agree with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. .

. I would believe the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Then look at w_’s sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Oops - there are none.
And never 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"? – Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." - Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE guide example? - Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective?
--
bud--

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

The IEEE says more than Bud's half truths. Amazing how a salesman will say anything to promote a product.
One type of surge typically causes no damage. This surge made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances (and by a 'whole house' protector). A surge that creates, at most, hundreds of volts. Industry standards even in 1970 required electronics to withstand even 600 volts without damage. Some will install a plug-in protector for this surge anyway.
A typically destructive surge arrives on any or all incoming wires - seeking earth ground. Shunt some wires together with a plug-in protector. That thousands of volts are shunted (clamped) on more or all wires and still seeking earth ground. Surge current on any one or all wires still must find a conductive path to earth. 8000 volt damage to an adjacent TV resulted. Same surge made irrelevant – does not overwhelm protection inside all appliances - when using only ‘whole house’ protector.
Earthing where a typically destructive surge would enter a building - the service entrance – means tens of thousand of amps gets harmlessly earthed either by a direct wire connection (cable TV, satellite dish, TV antenna), or via a 'whole house' protector (telephone, AC electric). A surge not inside the building does not overwhelm protection inside appliances - does not cause surge damage.
Every responsible source says surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly in earth. Well proven principles for the past 100 years define a single point earth ground and short connection to that electrode. Every Bud's citation even says what an effective protector does: divert (clamp, connect, shunt) surge energy to earth. But Bud is a salesman. He must twist anything - quote out of context - post insults - say anything to promote obscenely profitable plug-in protectors.
Bud will say anything to avoid what even his NIST citation says:

How does surge energy just disappear? Bud says 'clamping to nothing' will somehow stop, absorb, or make imaginary what even three miles of sky could not stop. Wow. Bud knows magic. Professional papers say that is impossible.
What Bud also ignores. A 'whole house' protector is secondary protection. Homeowners are encouraged to inspect their primary protection system: http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html If Bud admitted that, then Bud must admit what provides surge protection: earth ground.
Bud again refused to provide a manufacturer spec that claims protection. Why? No plug-in protector claims such protection. None. Bud refuses to provide protection specs because those specs just don't exist. Just another fact that Bud forgot to mention while so busy posting insults.
OP asked for information on earthing. Easy. Many industry professionals who install effective surge protection were cited. Bud could not quote them. Bud claims surge protection happens without earthing - 'clamping to nothing'. Professionals define what makes surges irrelevant and what makes protectors more effective. Install and connect protectors to a single point earth ground. Learn principles of earthing from numerous industry professionals in a reply to Caesar Romano - the OP. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground; where surge energy must be dissipated. A fact that does not require supporting insults.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. Never explained: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE guide example? - Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective? .

. What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in supprssors? "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor. .

. Ho-hum. Provided and ignored, as usual. .

. The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Still never seen - a source that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Poor w_ can’t even find anyone who agrees with him on the internet.
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"? – Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." - Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE guide example? - Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective? – Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
For real science read the NIST and IEEE guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

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

Bud is not a sales promoter for anything. He's doing a thankless job pointing out to unsupecting casual readers here that you are a demented loon who spouts endless falsehoods, and potentially dangerous advice that you can't substantiate. Bud specifically addresses your baloney, point by point, over and over again, armed with facts and verifiable sources for corraborrating evidence proving that he is correct and you are from another planet.
Thank you, Bud.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jul 17, 6:35 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

And your technical proof is where? Cited was professional after professional. Numerous factilities where surge damage cannot and does not happen were exampled. How factilities are corrected when surge damage does happen demonstrated. Provided were pinciples used for 100 years to make surge damage - even direct lightning strike - irrelevant.
Requested are numeric specs from any plug-in manufacturer that claims protection from each type of surge. Oh. No plug-in protector manufacturer claims such protection? So what does snipped-for-privacy@dog.com post? Over the years, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com repeatedly posts insults. Yes, a majority also believed Saddam had WMDs using snipped-for-privacy@dog.com logic. Where does salty post any facts, citations, or personal design experience? Some (ie salty) will blindly believe the first thing said: Saddam has WMDs and the miracle of plug-in protectors. . A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Each layer of protection is defined by the one always required component - earthing electrode. Surge energy must be earthed before entering a building. Plug-in protectors may even provide surges with destructive paths to earth - Page 42 Figure 8. Facts posted without insults and that contradict half truths from a sales promoter.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. How to identify ineffective (and highly profitable) protectors? 1) No dedicated earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthng. No wonder snipped-for-privacy@dog.com cannot provide those numeric spec numbers. Plug-in protectors don't claim protection AND do meet every indicator of ineffective protection.
The OP asked for and obtained information on earthing. Numerous surge protector professional were quoted. Why do professionals discuss earthing extensively? Earth ground is where surge energy must be harmlessly dissipated. snipped-for-privacy@dog.com was too busy insulting rather than learn the science.
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

Just another professional who learned how to make surge damage irrelevant and who snipped-for-privacy@dog.com must insult.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The IEEE is good enough for everyone here but W_. They show plug-in surge protectors being used. As for technical proof, where is W_'s that says plug-in surger protectors offer no protection and actually cause damage. But has asked for that about 20 times now, but W_ hasn't provided a single source that says plug-ins are useless and destructive.
Aside from exchanging specific points which go nowhere, I think W_'s whole approach to facts and how to choose facts to support his arguments leaves one questioning his basic reasoning and judgement. Case in point, W_ posts a list of many "responsible" surge protection companies that offer whole house protectors, while disparaging other companies that offer plug-ins as selling ineffective and damaging products that don't work. The obvious point W_ is attempting to make is that these responsible companies know about surge protection and only make whole house type protectors. Yet I pointed out months ago that every one of the companies on W_'s list of "responsible" companies, except one, ALSO MAKES AND SELLS PLUG-IN surge protectors. I even provided links to the plug-in products. Now, with that attempt at separating "responsible" from supposedly irresponsible companies selling fraudulent products so thoroughly demolished, any reasonably logical person would never try to bring it up again to support their position. But W_ continues to do it, rattling of the same list of supposedly responsible companies, ignoring the fact that they also make plug-ins. One can only question the logic and reasoning processes used by such a person.
 Cited was professional after

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jul 17, 1:32 pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

We discovered two plug-in protectors earthing lightning destructively into two powered off, networked computers. A hot (black) wire surge that probably would have been made irrelevant by the power supply, instead, was shunted around both supplies, into motherboard, out network, and to earth ground destructively via a third computer. But that is obvious. Any surge permitted inside the building means surges can find destructive path to earth via appliances. Other examples have also been observed.
Meanwhile Page 42 Figure 8 shows same. Surge energy was permitted inside a building because only plug-in protectors were used. Plug-in protector does not even claim to protect from a typically destructive surge. Plug-in protectors did not stop, block, absorb or make the surge disappear. 'Clamping to nothing' only permitted surge damage. Instead, that surge energy was earthed 8000 volts destructively via the adjacent TV. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective protection that trader must ignore.
But again, trader misrepresents the facts. Nobody said "plug-in surge protectors offer no protection". That is trader again reading only what he wants to see – what he must read only to argue. Plug-in protectors protect from surges that typically do no damage. Plug-in protectors protect from surges made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances AND made irrelevant by one 'whole house' protector.
Why spend $3000 in plug-in protectors (as Bud says is necessary) when one 'whole house' protector provides the same protection – and other protection? Obtain same protection for tens or 100 times less money. Meanwhile a 'whole house' protector also protects from surges that typically do cause damage.
Where is that spec for ANY plug-in protector that claims to protect from a type of surge that typically causes damage? No such numeric spec exists because no plug-in protector claims to protect from the typically destructive surge.
How do we know? Every responsible source including IEEE Standards (where IEEE makes recommendations) state what the effective protector must do. Plug-in protectors do not do what effective protectors do.
Of course, trader is too emotional to read these facts. These facts are posted for others who would learn science - who do not worship what is promoted by retail salesman. From IEEE Std 141 (Red Book)::

From IEEE Emerald Book:

IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding':

Yes, IEEE says you can use plug-in protectors. But to protect from surges that typically do damage. IEEE lists what is necessary to provide that protection. Only 'whole house' protectors provide that earthing. No plug-in protector meets those IEEE requirements. Yes you can also install equipment to protect from gamma rays or nuclear electromagnetic pulses. IEEE even says how that works. trader says that provide gamma ray protection is also surge protection? That is trader's reasoning. The IEEE says what protection systems must do for effective surge protection. No plug-in protector does that. No plug- in protector claims to do that.
Only protectors that earth surge energy harmless in earth: 'whole house' protectors. Only protectors always used when surge damage is not acceptable - 'whole house' protector.
What is always required when using plug-in protectors? A properly earthed 'whole house' protector. What does what any plug-in protector might do? A properly earthed 'whole house' protector. What makes all plug-in protector functions redundant - wasted money? A 'whole house' protector. What does Sun Microsystems, the IEEE, NIST, US Air Force, QST (the ARRL), Dr Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times, Schmidt Consulting, Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a station engineer from WXIA-TV, engineers who eliminated damage to Orange County FL emergency response facilities, every telephone company, commercial broadcasters, nuclear hardened radio stations, etc all require for surge protection? Plug-in protectors do not provide sufficient protection. All require earthing and protectors that shunt (connect, divert, clamp) to earth ground. In every case, plug- in protectors do not provide that protection.
Meanwhile another highly regarded IEEE author notes the problem with plug-in (point of connection) protectors. In his 1995 IEEE paper, Martzloff stated as his very first conclusion:

How many sources does trader ignore? Plug-in protectors can contribute to electronics damage. Plug-in protectors do not even claim to protect from typically destructive surges. Surges that a plug-in protector does protect from are 1) typically not destructive, 2) made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances, and 3) made irrelevant by one 'whole house' protector. Yes, even IEEE says you can buy plug-in protectors. IEEE then shows why plug-in protectors do not provide protection required by all consumers. IEEE even shows how plug-in protectors can contribute to appliance damage.
Meanwhile, if plug-in protectors provide protection, then trader posted numeric specifications provided by that manufacturer. Why do no plug-in protectors list protection from each type of surge? No provided by a plug-in protector is protection from surges that typically are destructive. How many IEEE and other sources say this? Thousands that trader must ignore.
One 'whole house' protector, without or without plug-in protectors, is the 99% protection defined by IEEE. But effective protectors do have the massive profit margin and are not recommended by the naive. Trader - why do you recommend consumers waste tens or 100 times more money on a solution that does not even claim to provide protection. Oh. Trader - where are those plug-in protector specs that even claim to provide effective protection? Oh. Trader knows that protection must exist. Trader need not first learn engineering facts?
Just because IEEE recommends band pass filters for RFI also proves that RFI filters provide surge protection? That also is trader's reasoning. Plug-in protector that cost tens or 100 times more money do not have and cannot provide what the IEEE requires for effective protection – a low impedance connection to single point earth ground.
Naysayers instead want to hype what protects from irrelevant surges and does not protect from destructive surges The OP asked what any informed consumer would ask. How do we install, upgrade, or inspect what provides surge protection - earth ground? How to obtain effective earthing for protection was posted in reply to the OP - Caesar Romano.
Effective surge protection means surge energy is not inside a building - is instead dissipated harmlessly in earth. Where is the plug-in protector that claims to do that? No – not one – plug-in protectors makes such claims in its specifications. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. "No earth ground means no effective protection." .

. bud does not say that is what is necessary. (w_ is sooo dumb.)
And repeating: What does the NIST guide say? "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." .

. Specs provided often and ignored - including in this thread. .

. Poor w_. Religious fanaticism can be so debilitating. From the Emerald Book: Multiport surge suppressor: "A surge-protective device used for connecting equipment to external systems whereby all conductors connected to the protected loads are routed, physically and electrically, through a single enclosure with a shared reference point between the input and output ports of each system." .

. The village idiot always forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in suppressors are effective. .

. How many IEEE and other sources say this? Thousands that w_ must ignore. .

. And the required religious mantra.
But still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you w_??? I am beginning to have doubts about what you have been saying.
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"? – Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." - Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors? - Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE guide example? - Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective? – Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
Why can’t you answer simple questions w_???
For real science read the NIST and IEEE guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--


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

Yeah, there you have it folks. Another classic. W_ rants on about how plug-ins offer no protection, then proceeds to deny he ever said that. W_ has not only made it quite clear that he believes they offer no protection, but has done everything he can to try to make it look like they burn houses down, complete with pics from 20 years ago.
LOL. See what I mean about his failure at any kind of logical reasoning?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Please list the exact specifications you desire and an example of a protection claim that would satisfy you. Thanks, Doug
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cited are what is required by numerous industry standards, publications and professional experience. For example, two 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" define what provides protection. Required is a low impedance connection to earth - to shunt and dissipate surge energy harmlessly: http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807830

Why do plug-in protectors have all but no earth connection? Wire impedance. Whereas a plug-in protector may be connected less than 0.2 ohm resistance to earth; it may be 120 ohms impedance. Even a trivial 100 amp surge would put something less than 12,000 volts between protector and breaker box. AC electricity about wire resistance. Surges are about wire impedance - which is why EE Times discusses impedance - not resistance. An AC wall receptacle is only a safety (or equipment) ground; not earth ground. It has low resistance and excessively high impedance.
Why do industry professionals discuss wire impedance whereas plug-in promoters do not? Well known for generations, every foot of wire increases wire impedance adversely. Even sharp wire bends increase wire impedance; compromise the earthing. How many sharp wire bends from a wall receptacle safety ground to breaker box? 50? Wall receptacle provides safety ground; not earth ground. An effective protector requires that short connection to earth. Even wire splices can unacceptably increase wire impedance - but not resistance.
User error. User has installed a protector that is too far from earth ground (therefore all but no earthing) and too close to appliances. Plug-in protectors without a properly earthed 'whole house' protector means a protector may even earth surges 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances. How do we eliminate this failure? Properly earth one 'whole house' protector. Surge energy must be kept out of the building.
Also necessary is the single point earth ground - what every incoming utility wire in every cable must connect to:

Why was lightning striking Ben Franklin's church steeples? Even wood and other household materials are electrical conductors. Just more reasons why protection inside the building is complicated and compromised; why surges must be earthed outside the building.
Practical application of the connection and electrode.
Low impedance demands a ground wire typically 'less than 10 feet from each utility wire (in every cable) to earth ground. Some of my best experiences involved a less than three foot connection to earth. Sharp wire bends, passing through metallic sheets or conduits, and splices will also compromise protection. So that wire does not induce surges on other wires, grounding wire is routed separated from other non-grounding wires (just another reason why Romex ground wire does not provide effective earthing). All is accomplished (often trivial) at the service entrance with proper planning.
How good must an earthing electrode be? Locations with average lightning storms and conductive earth can be earthed by a 10 foot ground rod. Others who want an even batter protector expands that earthing electrode. Better conductivity and equipotential means better protection. To you, that means installing a best single point ground. Best solution in low conductive (ie sandy) soil for a high lightning area is why massive earthing electrodes are installed - ie Ufer or halo (perimeter) grounds. Better earthing means a more effective protector:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
What most determines protector effectiveness? Its earthing. When surge damage results, ask where earthing is inferior or compromised; as discussed on 14 Jul 2008 at: http://tinyurl.com/6bc2jw
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unless the surge originates at the outlet, wire impendence works in your favor because inbound impendence is roughly the same as the outbound. Thus the surge voltage and rise time will be limited before it reaches the outlet.
While we're at it, you've mentioned that all appliances have built in surge protection that exceeds the effective protection of plug in protectors. Could you please pick an appliance such as flat screen TV or computer and show us the manufacturer's specifications for surge protection?
Thanks, Doug
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In most cases, upgrading earthing to post 1990 National Electrical Code provides a massive improvement - over 90% of what might be best achieved. Earthing to a water pipe on the other side of the basement is woefully insufficient; all but no earthing. To achieve maybe a single digit percent improvement, massively expand an earthing system. Another reason to enhance that earthing system is to correct unexpected problems that might compromise the single point earth ground (again, see that 14 Jul discussion).
Like a house foundation, earthing is the foundation of any protection system. Any wire that might carry a surge into the building must dump surge energy harmless into earth. If that connection is via a protector, then we want a protector that will earth direct lightning strikes without damage. Minimally sized 'whole house' protectors for AC electric start at 1000 joules and 50,000 amps. Don't let those numbers also on plug-in protectors fool you. A 'whole house' protector uses all joules during protection. Plug-in protectors do not.
Since an average surge is 20,000 amps and since that surge will also be seeking other homes, then a 50,000 amp 'whole house' protector is minimally sufficient. Joules is a ballpark measurement for protector life expectancy. We expect a protector to last over ten years without ever failing. Properly sized (effective) protectors only degrade. Remain functional for 10+ years and do not fail catastrophically. More joules exponentially increase a protector's life expectancy.
Whereas quality of and connection to earth ground determines a protector's effectiveness during those critical microseconds; joules determines whether the protector is functional for decades.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[Third of three posts]

When one says, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer". Reality: a protector abandoned the computer. Computer saved itself from a surge so trivial as to destroy the grossly undersized protector.
Previously listed were more responsible manufacturers that offer 'whole house' protectors. The responsible list is long. Includes just about every major electrical equipment supplier including Leviton, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, Keison, GE, etc. Some 'whole house' protectors selected randomly: http://www.deltala.com/prod01.htm#LA302R http://www.smarthome.com/4860.html http://www.keison.co.uk/furse/furse06.htm
In that 14 July discussion, every incoming wire must be integrated into a secondary protection system. Even network wires between buildings. Even TV and satellite dish antenna wires are earthed before entering. The primary protection system also should be inspected. First Energy customers, in particular, should give special attention to their primary protection system.
Surge protection to make direct lightning strike irrelevant means protection 'system' is sufficient for most every type of surge. Surge damage is routinely made irrelevant for less money if not using plug- in protectors. A direct lightning strike is the ultimate system test. No damage should ever result - even to protectors. If damage occurs, ask why that surge was not earthed; why it was permitted inside a building.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's quite amazing that W_ can't grasp that continuing to post this list doesn't advance his argument against plug-in surge protectors. It demolishes it, because every one of these "responsible" companies, except one, ALSO SELL PLUG-IN/POINT OF USE SURGE PROTECTORS. I think Keison is a new addition to the list. Let's look at what Keison says about surge protection:
http://keison.co.uk/bowthorpe/docs/Application%20Guide.pdf
Take a look at page 10, which clearly shows plug-in protectors being used in an overall and complete protection example.
And then there is Siemens, the one company on that list that does not sell plug-in surge protectors. Siemens makes a huge array of electrical equipment, residential, commericial, transmission, generation, communication, etc., so they should know a bit about surge protection. Here is what Simens says:
http://www2.sea.siemens.com/Products/Residential-Electrical/Product/Surge-Protection/
"Protection at the point of use The second line of defense is the point of use. Here, homeowners can reinforce point-of-entry protection by installing plug-in surge protectors (strips) into grounded wall receptacles where sensitive electronic equipment is located. These plug-in protectors, which generally have much lower limiting voltages than entry protectors, defend against externally and internally generated surges that travel through power, phone, data, and coaxial lines. Plug-in power strips should minimally include AC power protection and appropriate signal line protection and should protect against both catastrophic and small surges. These devices should be installed wherever expensive or sensitive electronic equipment like computers, VCRs, fax machines, PCs with modems, satellite systems, stereo systems, copiers and scanners are located. All types of equipment with signal lines, such as phones, cable TV, and satellites should be equipped with multi-port protectors, which protect signal and AC lines."

This is another statement of religious belief that is easily dismissed by anyone who has seen the effects of a direct lightning strike. To expect that a properly installed typical whole house surge protector means that a direct strike by a major bolt of lightning at the service mast entrance is not going to cause any damage at all is just ludicrous. There are plenty of photos around of what a direct lightning strike can do, including vaporizing conductors bigger than those used in home grounding systems.
 If damage

And then attribute any damage that does occur to the use of a plug-in surge protector somewhere in the house, right?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jul 20, 6:28 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Keison is but another of maybe 100 manufacturers that make effective 'whole house' protectors. With technical knowledge, trader would have known the list of responsible manufacturers is long AND that Keison has long been on that list.
Yes, a plug-in protector does protect from surges that typically cause no damage - as w_tom has said repeatedly. Complete protection means also installing protection from surges that don’t cause damage or do not exist. Protection inside appliances makes some types of surges redundant - irrelevant. A complete solution means we buy everything - even protect from things that do not cause damage.
Complete protection also means lightning rods, massive line filters, Early Streamer Emission devices, etc. Even telcos do not need or install complete protection. They need effective protection – do not enrich scammer such as ESE manufacturers. No responsible facility would waste money on complete protection. How about a psychic? Also necessary for ‘complete’ protection? High reliability facilities don't waste money on plug-in protectors.
How curious. Only manufactures that provide devices for effective solutions are also responsible electrical equipment manufacturers such as GE, Intermatic, etc. That was the point that trader completely ignored to post attacks and accusations. Companies such as APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable - companies that sell no effective solutions - take a $3 power strip, some fancy paint, some ten cents parts, and sell it for an obscene $25 or $150. Why not sell 'whole house' protectors? 'Whole house' protectors do not have massive profit margins. What is promoted by trader and Bud? Profits or protection?
If selling plug-in protection as effective (plug-in protector promoters say a ‘whole house’ protector is not necessary), then where does any plug-in protector even claim such protection? None. No plug- in protector - Bud's only solution - does not even claim protection from each type surge. trader also does not answer the #1 question. He cannot answer what requires electrical knowledge.
If plug-in protectors were so effective, then why does lightning cause protector failure and some computers are damaged while connected to that protector? Effective solutions mean even the protector is not destroyed during a direct lightning strike. High reliability facilities don't use the 'complete' solution. Instead, they divert surge energy to be harmlessly dissipated in earth - an effective solution that also costs less money.
A protector (available from responsible companies) is only as effective as its earth ground. Responsible companies sell ‘whole house’ protectors. APC, Belkin, Tripplite, Monster Cable, et al only sell the most obscenely profitable protectors that also do not even claim to provide protection. However even I would sell trader the ineffective protector. If he wants to remain so naïve as to enrich me, then fine. But I would also do what any responsible company does. I would sell ‘whole house’ protectors with the connection that makes protection possible – earthing. Posted above are concepts that provide a 99% effective solution. Those solutions only come from more responsible companies.
Where does trader answer the OP's questions? Only a fool would recommend protectors that do not even claim to provide that protection. Well the complete protection includes $hundreds for plug- in protectors to protect from a surge that almost never exists - and no protection from the surge that typically does cause damage. trader recommends protectors that do not even claim to provide protection. trader ignores an effective product only sold by more responsible manufacturers.
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.