On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:27:24 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote Re Re: "chain" surge suppressers?:
I assume then that those plug-in surge protectors that have *more* than one path to earth have both the neutral line and the ground (green) line. Is that correct?
Thanks
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:
And then there is Siemens, the
"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.
=A0If damage
And then attribute any damage that does occur to the use of a plug-in surge protector somewhere in the house, right?
etc,etc,etc
Notice that w_ can't answer the question in 4 posts.
. Yes.
But plug-in suppressors do not primarily protect by earthing the surge. They protect primarily by clamping (limiting) the voltage from all wires to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage between all wires (power and signal) going to protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment. (Read the example in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.)
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=92t 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 =96 do not enrich scammer such as ESE manufacturers. No responsible facility would waste money on complete protection. How about a psychic? Also necessary for =91complete=92 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 =91whole house=92 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 =91whole house=92 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 na=EFve as to enrich me, then fine. But I would also do what any responsible company does. I would sell =91whole house=92 protectors with the connection that makes protection possible =96 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.
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
. How curious. As has been pointed out several times, all w_'s responsible manufacturers make plug-in suppressors (except SquareD). They must not be responsible at all. SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use." .
. Poor w_. Repeating: "Service panel suppressors are a good idea."
Why does SquareD NOT claim protection from "each type of surge". [I have not looked at other manufacturers.] It is bullcrap.
Still missing, of course, a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
And still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? ? 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.
For real science read the NIST and IEEE guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
each wire enters the building, as close to earth
"Power surges on telephone exchange equipment meanwhile, affected a third of the Island. At 10.50 p.m. the surges resulted in a "main power failure" at Bermuda Telephone Company (BTC's) Paget Telephone Exchange, causing interruptions to 22,000 business and residential lines from Smiths to Dockyard.
Last night, 2,000 customers in the West End were still without service.
A BTC spokeswoman said: "The BTC staff will work very hard through the night to get everyone back on line. There are approximately 2,500 customers in the Devonshire South and Smiths South areas, feeding directly out of the Paget Exchange, who also continue to experience a service interruption."
Guess they should have paid attention to the expert.
Impedance is why that wire is not a connection to earth. To claim plug-in protectors are effective, others must ignore impedance or (more often) have no idea what impedance is. Impedance is why a surge protector on Page 42 Figure 8 does not divert surge current via white (neutral) and green (safety ground) wires. If the plug-in protector was earthed via those wires, then 8000 volts could not exist to destroy the adjacent TV. But the surge instead imposed 8000 volts destructively on an adjacent TV. How could these 8000 volts exist IF protector was earthed by neutral and safety ground wires?
No such earthing existed. Wire impedance was excessive.
Provided were typical numbers for 50 feet of Romex. Whereas that wire is well less than 0.2 ohms resistance, that same wire is maybe
120 ohms impedance. Even a trivial 100 amp surge would put wall receptacle (and surge protector) at something like 12,000 volts. Bud pretends wire impedance does not exist. And yet every professional citation (including Bud's) requires low impedance (not low resistance) earthing connections.Earthing for surge protection must be short to earth ('less than 10 feet', no sharp bends, no splices, etc). A wall receptacle is not called earth ground. It is called safety ground or equipment ground. No accident. Wall receptacles are not earth grounds.
Why does Bud avoid discussing "What these protective devices do is ... simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm." Because no plug-in protector claims (in numeric specs) to achieve that earthing and does not claim to protect from that type of surge. Bud would have you assume all surges are same. Sales are at risk.
Front page article in Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices From Lightning Transients" discusses wire impedance because 50 foot of interior AC electric wiring is woefully too long to provide earthing. Since the article is about protecting electrical devices, then it does not discuss plug-in protectors and it does discuss how to make earthing better. But then EE Times is for engineers; not for a majority who know only what is taught on retail store shelves. That propaganda is powerful stuff.
Assume a safety ground wire is earthing a surge. Since that wire is bundled with other wires, then surges are induced on those other wires. Now more surges on other wires - more surges inside the building. Just another reason why plug-in protectors do not properly earth the destructive surge AND why surges must be kept out of the building. One requirement for effective surge protection: those earthing wires must be separated from other non-grounding wires.
No technically accurate answer is determined from majority conclusions. After all, Saddam had all those WMDs? The majority said so by ignoring facts and numbers that engineers saw. It was also obvious in those 2002 numbers that Saddam=92s WMDs did not exist. So what did the majority say?
Propaganda from retail store shelves is the source of most recommendations. With obscene profit margins, a plug-in protector gets promoted everywhere; 'whole house' protectors only sell on the science. If you don't grasp this simple science, then spend tens or
100 times more money on plug-in protectors. Propaganda is that effective. How does Monster Cable sell a $3 power strip with fancy paint and ten cent protector parts for $150? Obscene profits make propaganda easy.A surge will travel to earth via that Romex wire and not induce surges on all other wires? Of course not. Even sharp bends inside every junction box means that wire does not provide effective earthing. What is found only in responsible (professional) citations? Even references to no sharp bends. Why? A sharp bends only increase 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page
42 Figure 8. No earth ground means no effective protection. Why does Polyphaser make a protector with no earth ground connection? For even better protection (Polyphaser is an industry benchmark), that protector makes a zero foot connection to earth. One who even designed and built this stuff (who learned after direct lightning strikes from surprising successes and by making these mistakes) is the minority. Therefore he is wrong?Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors? Why do all telcos use =91whole house=92 protectors? Retail store salesmen or angry others cannot answer that. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Demonstrated by numbers and citations is a wall receptacle does not provide earthing. Those who promote plug-in protectors also avoid all discussion about impedance =96 an engineering concept not taught on retail store shelves. A concept so essential to protection as to be discussed by engineers in a magazine only for electrical engineers. An article entitled =93Protecting Electrical Devices From Lightning Transients" devotes a large part to impedance =96 and why that wire connection to earth must be so short; no sharp bends, etc.
What does that article and most every professional source note? That neutral and safety ground wire cannot earth surges. It will easily conduct 60 Hz AC electricity. But surges have completely different characteristics make wire impedance relevant. People such as trader do not do this stuff. What did every professional citation define? Resistance? Of course not. Trader is only discussing resistance. It is what he understands. But every citation also talks about wire *impedance* when discussing surges. An electrical concept that is little taught in tech school but is well taught to engineers.
How much current can a lamp cord (18 AWG) conduct? That wire typically rated for 10 amps may conduct approaching 60,000 amps of surge current =96 can even conduct a majority of direct lightning strikes without damage. A majority without engineering training would not know this; may even deny it. Which one is an engineer and has experience? A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which is why a plug-in protector has all but no earthing.
. w_ is fond of inventing opinions and attributing them to others.
w_ is going to have trouble getting 12,000V past a receptacle, which will arc-over at 6.000V. After arc-over there will be hundreds of volts. The same thing happens at service panels. But w_ is not encumbered by reality.
The 6,000V arc?over at service panels combined with the impedance of branch circuits greatly limits the current, and thus energy, that can reach a plug-in suppressor. .
. Geez, thats a tough one. Umm, maybe because it is high amp direct wired. And wouldn?t all 683,297 telephone circuits have to go through a multiport suppressor? And appropriateness of devices for different uses? .
. Nope. Poor w_ can?t figure out what trader said. Might be the religious blinders. .
, w_?s religious mantra will save him from confusing thoughts.
Such as from the IEEE guide - plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing. The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere.
And surprise - still missing, a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
And still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? ? 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.
For real science read the NIST and IEEE guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.