DIY surge protection...

There is (in the US) apparently no definition for how joules are measured. As a result, some manufacturers measure jules in a deceptive manner, which puts honest manufacturers at a disadvantage. As a result, some good manufacturers are not providing joule ratings anymore. Instead they give surge current ratings (which are comparable).

The IEEE guide warns against comparing devices based on joule ratings unless the test method is the same. Too bad - I like joule ratings.

Certainly can happen.

In my first post I quoted an investigation by Martzloff that found only about 35J max at a plug-in suppressor with even the strongest surge that can be reasonably expected on power wires. One reason is arc-over at the service panel. The other is the impedance of branch circuit wiring. Both are mentioned in other posts. If the branch circuit is very short - outlet under the panel, the energy can be higher.

I recently bought a major brand plug-in suppressor (about $30) with ratings of 590J and 30,000A per MOV, 1770J and 90,000A total. I don't expect the suppressor will ever fail. The manufacturer apparently doesn't either - there is a connected equipment warranty.

The current ratings, 30,000A, are in some ways odd - there is no way you could get that current to the suppressor. It is higher than what will come in on the service. But the high current ratings go along with the high joule ratings.

The joule rating for a MOV is the single event energy hit the MOV can take and be at the defined end of life (but still functional). If you look at MOV ratings curves, you find that if the individual energy hits are a small fraction of the rated energy, the cumulative energy rating is far higher than the single event rating. If my 590J MOVs only see 35J or far less events, the cumulative energy rating will be far over 590J - another reason for connected equipment warranties.

High ratings are useful in the same way for service panel suppressors.

The normal failure mode for MOVs is to start to conduct at lower voltages until they conduct at normal voltages and have thermal runaway. Any suppressor you buy in the US should be listed under the appropriate UL listing - 1449. UL1449 has required, since 1998, a thermal disconnect for overheating MOVs.

For plug-in suppressors, the IEEE guide goes on at length about how the protected load can be connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected when they fail, or can be connected across the incoming line. In the former case, the load is 'protected' even if the MOV fails. Another reason why manufacturers can have protected equipment warranties.

A good idea, particularly in high risk areas. It is suggested by Martzloff in another post. Plug-in suppressors are particularly useful if the protected equipment has both power and phone/cable connections - equipment that is particularly at risk.

Note that all interconnected equipment has to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor and external wires (including phone and cable) have to go through the suppressor. I think this is not as well understood as it should be.

The max probable current on hot service wires is 10,000A. Service panel suppressors with much higher ratings are readily available.

Phones off the wall sounds odd. I would look at the phone entrance protector and length of ground wires from phone and cable entrance protectors to the ground at the power service. The entrance protector and earthing should protect the phone (using US installation practice). And look at earthing system?

All good information. Never been around a ferro-resonant transformer - interesting.

Reply to
bud--
Loading thread data ...

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

The unit has two LEDs to indicate the condition of the device. I am goign to call Leviton support tomorrow to try to get more info. They don't have teh mnaul/instructions on-line.

Doug White

Reply to
Doug White

You know nothing about it, eh?

Reply to
Cliff

Those lights only report a failure that must not happen if the protector is properly sized. Normal failure mode for any protector means it only degrades. Those lights do not report that normal failure mode.

For most any location, a 50,000 amp protector will last at least ten years - in most cases many decades longer. If your neighborhood has a high number of failures, then a 100,000 amp protector will exponentially increase that protector life expectancy. And will significantly decrease its clamping voltages.

Of course, a most critical part is the only part that actually provides protection. That is the earth ground. Every protection layer is defined by the only 'system' component that provides protection. Earth ground. How to make that 'whole house' protector more effective? Upgrade the earthing. Every protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Single point earthing with a connection as short as possible, no sharp wire bends, ground wire separated from other non-grounding wires, wire not inside metallic conduit, etc. All essential to permit a protector to earth direct lightning strikes without damage =96 even to the protector.

Reply to
westom

More convoluded logic. If the indicator lights are useless, then why are they included on many of the surge protectors provided by the company Wtom recommends?

We're still waiting for a link to where you can buy one of those 50KA ones at HD for $50 like you claimed.

=A0If your neighborhood has a

Then explain this. You have claimed many times that all appliances and electronics have built-in surge protection. How can that be, since they have no direct short connection to earth ground, which you claim renders protection impossible? Do they come with a mythical earth ground inside? And how can the same type of device that is used in common electronics for surge protection, ie MOV, work inside the home electronics, but according to you, be totally ineffective if used outside the electronics in the form of plug-in surge protector? Not only do they also use MOVs, but those in $20 plug-in surge protectors have significantly LARGER capacity MOVs than the ones inside the $500 home entertainment electronics. How are airplanes protected from surges without an earth ground?

The contradictions here are enough to make your head explode.

Reply to
trader4

Wow; that's quite a mess of unverifiable and misleading misinformation! Earth ground is NOT the most critical protection object. It isn't even necessary for protection from longitudinal surges, in fact. This is a mess of guesses with an attempt to hopefully sound like you know what you're talking about, but you don't.

Beware that poster's advice.

HTH,

Twayne`

Reply to
Twayne

He's been trolling with the same crap for years. :(

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

So why do all telcos require their protectors connected from each wire to earth? Why does every telco bring every wire into underground vaults where a protector connects within feet to earth - for longitudinal mode transients? And why has this been the routine solution for over 100 years?

Why does the NIST say grounding is required for protection?

So the NIST also has it wr> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process

What is lightning? A longitudinal mode surge. So the NIST is wrong. The IEEE is wrong. The US Air Force is also wrong when protector are required to located as close to where wires enter the building and earth ground?

Instead of posted anything technical, you also post insults? Of course. That is what the less technically informed do. Where is this IEEE paper that shows longitudinal mode protection is without earth ground? Every paper I read is always about earth ground. Even this professional's application note says every wire must connect to earth before entering the building. But since you know better, then the professional is lying? We should believe you only because you can insult?

From Compliance Engineering entitled "Resettable Circuit Protection for Telecom Network Equipment" is: > In longitudinal mode, the overstress is present between tip-and- ring

IOW longitudinal surges seek earth ground destructively via electronics. How do you stop it? Do you magically stop what even three miles of sky could not? Of course not. Do you magically make that energy just disappear? Of course not. The routine solution for over 100 years is to do even what Ben Franklin lightning rods do. Connect the longitudinal mode surge to earth. The energy is not inside the building hunting for earth ground destructively via appliances.

The NIST says how critical earth ground is:

So, if earth ground is not important, then Franklin was wrong to earth his lightning rods? That is what you have posted. Franklin's lightning rods work because lightning - a longitudinal mode surge - is connected to earth. - where energy is harmlessly dissipated. Where is that energy absorbed if not in earth? Please, show me this magic device that can stop what three miles of sky cannot. That will magically absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? When surge protection is always about earth ground, how do you know they are wrong? Because you can post venom?

Why do the same technically naive naysayers routinely post so nasty?

Reply to
westom

So why do all telcos require their protectors connected from each wire to earth? Why does every telco bring every wire into underground vaults where a protector connects within feet to earth - for longitudinal mode transients? And why has this been the routine solution for over 100 years?

Why does the NIST say grounding is required for protection?

So the NIST also has it wr> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process

What is lightning? A longitudinal mode surge. So the NIST is wrong. The IEEE is wrong. The US Air Force is also wrong when protector are required to located as close to where wires enter the building and earth ground?

Instead of posted anything technical, you also post insults? Of course. That is what the less technically informed do. Where is this IEEE paper that shows longitudinal mode protection is without earth ground? Every paper I read is always about earth ground. Even this professional's application note says every wire must connect to earth before entering the building. But since you know better, then the professional is lying? We should believe you only because you can insult?

From Compliance Engineering entitled "Resettable Circuit Protection for Telecom Network Equipment" is: > In longitudinal mode, the overstress is present between tip-and- ring

IOW longitudinal surges seek earth ground destructively via electronics. How do you stop it? Do you magically stop what even three miles of sky could not? Of course not. Do you magically make that energy just disappear? Of course not. The routine solution for over 100 years is to do even what Ben Franklin lightning rods do. Connect the longitudinal mode surge to earth. The energy is not inside the building hunting for earth ground destructively via appliances.

The NIST says how critical earth ground is:

So, if earth ground is not important, then Franklin was wrong to earth his lightning rods? That is what you have posted. Franklin's lightning rods work because lightning - a longitudinal mode surge - is connected to earth. - where energy is harmlessly dissipated. Where is that energy absorbed if not in earth? Please, show me this magic device that can stop what three miles of sky cannot. That will magically absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? When surge protection is always about earth ground, how do you know they are wrong? Because you can post venom? Why is earthing for surge routine in every facility that can never suffer damage? And why has that always been the solution for over 100 years? Clearly they must be wrong because you can insult.

Reply to
westom

From Dr Ronald B Standler in his book "Protection of Electronic Circuits from Overvoltages":

Longitudinal is also called common-mode. Maybe Dr Standler should consult you? Myths must be better information. Grounding is not necessary for effective protection? Plug-in protectors without ground are effective because retail salesmen and hearsay says so.

Reply to
westom

Everyone is in favor of earthing.

The NEC requires the service neutral to be bonded to the ground and both be connected to earthing electrode(s). (That directly earths any surge on the neutral.)

The NEC requires an entrance protector for telephone wires, with the voltage on the wires clamped to a terminal connected to the earthing system.

The NEC requires a ground block on cable and antenna coax where the cable enters the building with the ground block connected to the earthing system. (That does not limit the voltage on the center conductor.)

That is the required wiring under the NEC.

With a strong surge current to earth, the building "ground" system can rise thousands of volts above "absolute" earth potential. Much of the protection is actually that the power, cable, phone, ... wires rise together. (If phone and cable entry protectors are not near the power service and connected with short ground wires that can not be assured.) According to Martzloff, improving the interconnections between systems is more important than reducing the resistance to earth.

Still not explained - why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

Your religious blinders do not allow you to read anything in the papers that contradicts your religious belief in earthing.

Like a Martzloff paper that says "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]." You have often try to make the paper say the opposite of what Martzaloff was saying.

That certainly solves almost all of the surge problem.

But it is hard to get power, telephone and cable through the earthed wires.

w thinks plug-in suppressors are "magic" because his religious blinders prevent him from reading the clear explanation in the IEEE guide of how they work.

Where the energy goes has often been explained (including this thread) but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating.

With respect to plug-in suppressors what does the NIST guide really say? They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

- Why do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Reply to
bud--

Why is so much of the Teleco plant fiber optic, that requires no electrical protection?

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

So again you cannot answer the question. So as a hate monger, you must change the subject. Every CO has copper wires. Every CO has typically 100 surges with each thunderstorm. And damage must never happen. Why? They don't waste money on plug-in protectors. They spend massively less money for the protectors that actually do protection. Every incoming wire in every cable connects short to earth ground via a 'whole house' protector. Because that is the protection that even makes direct lightning strikes irrelevant. That is how it was done 100 years ago. That is based even in the principles demonstrated by Franklin in 1752.

Rather than admit reality, you would throw out fiber optics as a solution? What is the best solution per dollar? What makes even direct lightning strikes to utility wires irrelevant? A 'whole house' protector connected to the only thing always necessary for surge protection - earth ground.

What defines every protection layer? Each layer always has one thing - single point earth ground. What must magic box protectors avoid discussing to protect obscene profit margins? Earth ground.

Spin and accusation does not change reality. COs suffer hundreds of surges without damage - because the technology was even understood 100 years ago.. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Reply to
westom

According to Bud, that energy magically disappears. Clamping somehow make energy disappear? He says that often. Meanwhile the NIST (his own citation) says what happens when the protector cannot connect that energy to earth:

Or Dr Martzloff who discusses the same problems in his 1994 paper. A plug-in (point of connection) protector can even cause damage to nearby appliances. It is the first conclusion in that IEEE paper:

Each layer of protection is defined by the only item that makes surge energy harmless. Protection is always about where energy dissipated. And why more responsible companies sell the 'whole house' protector. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. An effective protector also costs tens or 100 times less money per protected appliance.

Reply to
westom

eliminates the difference in potential

Reply to
yetanothermickey

Most of those same responsible companies also sell plug-in surge protectors too. Some recommend using them in conjunction with their whole house surge protectors. So there goes that arguement. One would think W would have learned to stop bringing this bogus argument up since it's so easy to demolish, but here we go again.

Still waiting for an explanation of the obvious contradiction here. W claims that all electronics and appliances have built-in surge protection and that it works. Now, if surge protection is only possible with a short direct connection to earth ground, how is that protection possible? And how is it that the same components, ie MOVs inside a TV can be effective, yet even larger ones in a plug-in surge protector next to the TV are ineffective?

How is it that electrical systems on airplanes are protected from surges? Where is their earth ground?

And if W knows so much about surge protection, where is the link to that 50KA rated whole house surge protector for less than $50 that he claimed is available at HD?

Reply to
trader4

It should be be equipted with a spark gap for high voltage high current lightening strikes plus MOVs to get the voltage down to relatively safe levels. The energy is mostly disappated in the MOV and into the wiring and ground.

Reply to
AZ Nomad

What question? Why you keep trolling with your outdated and wrong ideas?

No. Not even at power line is copper these days. The local switching center is all fiber optic, and the power lines are aluminum.

Try to prove that. You can't, because it's another factoid you created with a box of Ex-lax.

Yet it used to, before they started the conversion to fiber optics. It happened quite often. That's why they were constantly reparing their physical plant. The old leaded cable had to be pressurized with dry nitrogen to keep water out when lighting pinholed the lead. They used to monitor the tanks, and if too much was leaking, they used an ultrasonic sniffer to find the pinholes.

Sigh. They did use plug in protectors on the phone lines. EDCO made them, but the market is a lot smaller these days. Now they are sold for PBX systems.

So, they have surge suppressors on optical cable?

Bullshit. A direct strike can blow a hole through a building, take out the switching system for the plant's 48 VC power system, and leave it a smoking wreck.

Sure it was.

Yawn. Franklin was an early, "Hold my beer" type. He was an ignorant bumbler who was lucky he didn't die from his belief that lightning could be harnessed to provide electricity.

Florida was switching to fiber optic trunklines and smaller switch centers 20+ years ago. My copper phone line runs less than one mile before it is converted to fiber, combined with a lot of other lines, then routed to a switching center about the size of a single car garage. You're at least 30 years behind the times, and ignorant as ever.

Keep posting your nonsense. Everyone can see you for what you are.

Hate mongers? Yes, I despise liars and idiots with nothing but flimsy straw men.

You wouldn't know reality if it hit you in the face.

Yawn. Keep spouting your narrow minded message. BTW, have you ever heard of EDCO? Friends of mine just bought their factory building to move their manufacturing business.

The stop spinning and accusing.

Sigh. The classic CO is a dinosaur. Technology has passed it by. Learn what is really going on so you don't keep embarrassing yourself.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

I don't ever say that, but the village idiot just can't understand. To poor w it is "magic".

As clearly explained in the IEEE guide, plug-in suppressors work primarily by limiting the voltage on all wires to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage between wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment. The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere. Because that violates w's religious belief in earthing his religious blinders filter out the words.

For power service wires, any surge energy on the neutral is directly earthed by the required N-G-earthing electrode bond in all US services. If there is a large surge on hot wires, at about 6,000V there is arc-over from service panel buses to the enclosure, which is connected to the earthing electrode. After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of volts. That dumps most of the surge energy to earth. This has been explained numerous times but is filtered off by poor w's religious blinders.

Martzloff (who was the NIST surge guru) has a technical paper that looks at the energy that reaches the MOV in a plug-in suppressor. Even with the maximum probable surge on power wires the energy is 35J or less. In most cases it was 1J or less. The reason is arc-over, above. Also that a surge is, by definition, a very short event. That means the current components are relatively high frequency. So the inductance of the branch circuit wires is more important than the resistance. The impedance of the wire is to high to allow much energy reach the plug-in suppressor. This has also often been explained, but the village idiot just ignores it.

Just as I wrote in my last post - "where the energy goes has often been explained (including previously in this thread) but w's religious blinders prevent the words from penetrating." Poor w just keeps repeating his lies.

And poor w still can't read what the NIST guide says about plug-in suppressors: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

This is exactly the paper I cited in my previous post - w's religious blinders prevent him from reading anything that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

At the time of the 1994 paper "multiport" surge suppressors were just a concept or very new. The *whole point* of the paper was that multiport suppressors are effective.

w always ignores that Martzloff said in the paper: "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]."

On alt.engineering.electrical, w similarly misconstrued the views of Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff coauthor, and provoked a response from an electrical engineer: "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."

And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors are effective.

"Layers of protection" are described by Martzloff: "Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service entrance complemented by [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive appliances [electronic equipment] within the house."

w's religious mantra protects him from evil thoughts (aka. reality).

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn't anyone in the known universe agree with you w???

Still never answered - simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

- Why do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? Why can't you answer simple questions w???

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Reply to
bud--

Idiot 'w' thinks his boat will sinks the first time a wave hits.

Reply to
krw

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.