"chain" surge suppressers?

Page 4 of 4  

w_tom wrote:

. 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.
--
bud--

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
w_tom wrote:

etc,etc,etc
Notice that w_ can't answer the question in 4 posts.
--
bud--

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

Every plug-in surge protector has at least one path to earth -- the neutral line which is bonded to ground at the panel. You're right when you say a better ground makes for better protection. You're flat wrong when you extend that to imply plug in protectors are ineffective.

Indeed it is better to keep surge energy out of a building. But "must" is way too strong. Even a panel protector does not keep it out of the building if the panel is inside.

As I'm sure you have read, the first line of body text after the diagram says "Figure 8 shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors that does not fully protect against lightning damage because of this effect."
So the article attributes the failure to user error, not a failure of the protector.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, seems everyone here agrees with that, except W_.

Also true.

Yes, and another W_ argument shot down by his own reference. Did you catch the posts where he lists the "responsible" manufacturers who make and sell whole house protectors and then disparages other companies that make and sell plug-ins? I showed him links months ago that showed that all but one of these same "responsible" manufacturers also sell plug-ins. The remaining one on his list talks about using them as part of effective protection. Yet, he continues to post this list, trying to imply there is a difference between resonsible companies and those that sell plug-ins. Totally bizarre.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Caesar Romano wrote:

. 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.)
--
bud--

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

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 Saddams 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 whole house 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 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 Protecting Electrical Devices From Lightning Transients" devotes a large part to impedance 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 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

. 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 arcover 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 wouldnt all 683,297 telephone circuits have to go through a multiport suppressor? And appropriateness of devices for different uses? .

. Nope. Poor w_ cant 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.
--
bud--

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

Said to be a common cause of fires in the home...
Not the intended use.
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.