Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?

Page 1 of 2  
Hi,
GFCI's have some surge protection built in to protect them from surges in house wiring. Does this same surge protection extend a bit to protect what is pluged into a GFCI? I guess this may be a dumb question in that I know that there are surge supression receptacles out there, but those ones cost about 2.5 times a GFCI receptacle. Can I get a "cheap" surge supressor in installing a GFCI?
Best, mMike.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

No. If you have something that needs surge protection and it is worth the cost, get really good point protection.
I would suggest that you may want to consider whole house surge protection as well. It can give good, if not great, protection to every device in your home. Important sensitive devices should still have their own point source protection.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Hi, Maybe. Surge may trip the breaker.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27 Mar 2007 04:19:40 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

imho:
I had a few computers die on me, they were old, but taught me a lession. I had to tackle my voltage spikes a few ways.
1. Surge surpressor in the panel. Medium cost. 2. Ensuring proper panel grounding. Few bucks. 3. Point of use surge surpressors. low cost.
With all three, I've not had a killed another computer or electronic applicance. So, what can you get from my experience? Tackle each problem head on, don't be cheap and try and get a secondary benifit from another safty device. Good luck.
tom @ www.MeetANewFriend.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Joshin wrote:

#3 is not necessarily "low-cost." The el-cheapo surge protectors use MOVs to clamp the spikes. Problem is, these MOVs, which act like fuses in reverse, only work once (or a few times). After that, you're unprotected with no indication of the possible peril. Better is a moderately-priced surge protector, ~$50, that has sopisticated electronics instead of MOVs.
Look for the ones that guarantee to protect attached loads.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

According to the IEEE guide, "the vast majority (>90%) of both hard-wired and plug-in protectors use MOVs to perform the voltage-limiting function. In most AC protectors, they are the only significant voltage limiters."
MOVs are intrinsically all voltage clamps - when the voltage rises over a characteristic voltage the MOV conducts to try to keep the voltage at that level. They are like back-toback Zenier diodes. MOVs dont protect by absorbing energy, but they absorb energy in the process of protecting.
A single MOV will have an energy (Joule) rating, say 5000J for argument. If the MOV takes a single hit of 5000J the voltage at which it conducts will decrease by 10% and the MOV is considered to be at end of life. (It will still work, but as it takes more hits the voltage at which it starts to conduct will progressively get lower.) As the energy hit per event goes down, the cumulative total energy the MOV can dissipate goes up. At 5000J per hit the cumulative dissipation is 5000J At 1500J per hit the cumulative dissipation might be 13,000J. At 200J per hit the cumulative dissipation might be 200,000J. Buying a suppressor with a high energy rating gives a much longer life than would be anticipated. With a very high rating, it is not likely a plug-in suppressor will ever wear out. I believe that is why some of these high energy rating suppressors have a lifetime guarantee on the suppressor. They are also likely to have a guarantee for protected loads. Any decently rated plug-in suppressor will work far more than a few times.
MOVs are likely to fail by the conduction voltage decreasing until the MOV conducts on normal power and goes into thermal runaway. Since 1998 the UL standard has required MOVs to be disconnected when they overheat. The IEEE guide spends quite a bit of space differentiating between plugin suppressors that connect the protected load across the MOV, so it will be disconnected with the MOV - or connecting the protected load so it stays live when MOVs are disconnected. In the first case, you will certainly be aware of possible peril, and I would recommend it. Far as I know all suppressors have indicator lights that indicate they are functioning.
Franois Martzloff , who was the author of the NIST guide on surges, says that overvoltage is the most frequent cause of failure of surge protectors.
The IEEE guide cautions against comparing suppressors based on energy rating because there is no standard its measurement. High energy ratings, however, indicate long life. The IEEE guide gives recommendations for surge current rating.
The 3 points of JustJoshing are the same as the IEEE guide. A 4th point is a single point ground - where the entry protectors for cable, phone, dish,... are near the power service panel and connect by short wire to the earthing wire at the power panel. Not having a short connection causes the problems discussed in another post.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The guaranteed is so chock full of exceptions as to not be honored. One APC guarantee even say protectors also from any other manufacturer void the guarantee. This has been demosntrated by testimoney elsewhere and repeatedly.
Protectors, including ones that Bud recommends, use MOVs. When typically undersized, then the naive think a protector did something. One never read manufacturer datasheets; instead promote the myth he heard: MOVs act like fuses. Such reasoning is called 'junk science'. When a protector is undersized as fails catastrophically, then protection already inside the appliance saves that appliance. When undersized, sometimes these scary pictures occur: http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm
Little difference between a grocery store protector or one with expensive paint sold for $100+ in Circuit City and Best Buy. They are same protectors; use same circuits.
Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 protector parts. Sell it for $20 or $100. Notice why Bud posts incessently? Plug-in protectors are so grossly profitable that promoting myths is essential - customer is only a mark.
Bud has just posted:

Minor point: failure is created by overcurrent which is why surges are rated by their current; not voltage. Bud forgets to mention: Martzloff also says the adjacent plug-in protector can even contribute to appliance damage. Conclusion from that Martzloff IEEE paper:

Martzloff discusses how plug-in protecotrs can create damage "even when or perhaps because" a plug-in protector is present. Why sufficient size it? Its not there for protection. But if undersized - if it only works once, then people such as HeyBub will promote junk science myths.
Effective protector shunts even lightning strikes to earth - and remains functions. Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors costs tens of times less money.
Responsible organizations, manufatures and industry authors (that even Bud quotes) define protection not in guarantees and not in the protector's price. Protection is defined by its earthing. Again Martzloff:

That is a 'whole house' protector or hardwire that connect Cable TV wire 'less than 10 feet' to earth ground (not protector required).
Bud claimed a protector absorbs the surge. Reality - 500 joule protector shunts maybe 5,000 or 10,000 joule surges elsewhere and remains functional. They don't protect by absorbing. They shunt. Joules measures the life expectancy of a protector. It says little about how much energy is shunted elswhere. Like high tension power wires, the MOV conducts current elsewhere as long as that current is not too great or too long. Something new from Bud: he is finally admitting this.
Protectors - power strip, UPS, and 'whole house' - all feature MOVs. How do you know? Look at its numeric specifications. When selling a scam - the plug-in protector - then installing too few joules gets the naive to promote them as HeyBub demonstrates. Why do many not understand the 'whole house' protector? One reason: 'whole house' protectors are properly sized. They shunt direct lightning strikes to earth AND remain functional. They must not vaporize. Naive would never realize how often protection was provided because the 'whole house' protector does not create those scary pictures - is not so grossly undersized.
Bud hopes you don't read and comprehend all 62 pages in his citation. Visit Adobe page 42 (paper page 33) in Bud's citation: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf Figure 8 is a TV damaged by 8000 volts because the MOVs (a power strip protector or UPS) were too close to appliances and too far from eathing.
Protectors use MOVs. Protectors promoted only for higher profits are undersized - ie those above scary pictures. Yes, MOVs degrade - and must not vaporize. As Bud now admits, a protector degrades when its voltage changes by 10%. It degrades - remains functional - must not be so grossly undersized as to smoke, vaporize, or catastrophically fail - those scary pictures. But failures including those in scary pictures are how expensive and ineffective plug-in protectors are promoted to the naive.
A protector does what? Even the IEEE says what is THE protection - earth ground: IEEE Green Book (Standard 142) 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' :

IEEE Red Book (Standard 141):

Why ground? Because earth is the protection. Effective protector shunts (diverts, clamps, connects) a surge to earth. A protector does not stop what 3 miles of sky could not. And yet that is what a plug- in protector, without earthing, must do ... in direct violation of an IEEE recommendation. IEEE recommendations are only in Standards. Even Martzloff says a plug-in protector can even contribute to appliance damage - as this author saw when studying damage and by performing autopsies of the destruction many decades ago.
No earth ground means no effective protection. Guarantee is simply another myth to promote ineffective protectors. How to avoid those scary pictures? Don't use ineffective protectors - ie not dedicated earthing wire. Install and earth one 'whole house' protector. How to make surge protection even better? Enhance that earthing system. Earthing - not the protector - is protection. Earth (not a protector) is where a surge gets absorbed - as noted above by Martzloff, IEEE, and MOV manufacturer datasheets. Who denies this? Promoters of ineffective plug-in protectors who may also deny the scary pictures.
A protector sold in a grocery store does same thing as one with the mythical guarantee and excessive dollar price. No 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth? It may even contribute to damage of the adjacent appliance as Figure 8 page 42 from Bud's own citation demonstrates.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

The only testimony provided by w_ was someone who didnt connect a CATV connection through a suppressor. All wires must including power and CATV have to connect through a suppressor to provide protection. Denial was justified. But w_ cant figure out how plug-in suppressors work.

Under sized is a red herring. Suppressors are readily available with very high ratings.

The undersized red herring #2. And lacking any technical arguments w_ uses pathetic scare tactics again.

Ho-hum. Repeating: For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about "some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998.
None of these links indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors shouldn't be used. The links do give info on how to use plug-in suppressors.

I only post to counter w_'s bulllcrap. And I can only quite w_ - "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."
> Bud forgets to mention:

w_ 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 surge reference equalizer.
A surge reference equalizer is the multiport plug-in surge suppressor discussed elsewhere in this thread and described in both the IEEE and NIST guides.
And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plugin suppressors are effective.

Undersized red herring #3.

Statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide describes plug-in suppressors as working primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. But that violates w_s religious belief in earthing. To protect his religious beliefs w_ distorts, misquotes and tries to discredit conflicting information.

w_ is an idiot. I said MOVs dont protect by absorbing energy, but they absorb energy in the process of protecting.

w_ just claimed I said protectors absorb the surge. Now I said they dont. w_ is an idiot. I have never said protectors protect by absorbing energy. But with no technical arguments w_ must misquote and discredit.

I do hope people will read and comprehend it. It is a description of how a multiport plug-in surge suppressor works. Because it violates his religious belief in earthing w_ cant comprehend it. The IEEE guide, as well as the NIST guide, says plug-in suppressors are effective.

The red herring again #4

Yet another stupidity. I have always said degrading is a continuous process with end of life defined as 10% voltage change.

Repeating: You have to be really stupid to say the IEEE would release a guide to the general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards. And the IEEE guide, pdf page 4, makes it absolutely clear that the IEEE guide has been peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE. But w_ must deny the obvious to protect his religious belief in earthing.
And multiport plug-in surge suppressors are a surge protection device in the IEEE Emerald Book "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment".

As the IEEE guide explains to anyone who can think, plugin suppressors work primarily by clamping not earthing or stopping. The IEEE guide says plugin suppressors are effective.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #3.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #4.

MOV manufacturer datasheets describe MOVs - they dont talk about earthing.
Martzloff (paper above and NIST guide) and the IEEE (guide and Emerald book) say plug-in suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have are misquotes, distortions and w_s opinions based religious beliefs.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bud's job is to promote plug-in protectors. Therefore he will lie as necessary to sell more plug-in protectors. Those plug-in protectors don't even claim to provide protection from surges that typically do damage. Anyone can look at those numeric specs. No such claim because it does not provide that protection. Bud alsol never provides a spec sheet that says so. Meanwhile, his own citations describe how plug-in protectors will harm adjacent appliances.
IEEE does not recommend what Bud intentionally perverts. IEEE papers warn how his protectors can create damage. IEEE Standards make recommendations. Bud hopes you believe otherwise. Bud will not even requote those Standards because Standards are quite clear; why plug-in protectors are not effective protection: IEEE Red Book (Std 141) recommends protection:

Bud's products have no dedicated earthing connection - which is required for effective protectors. So Bud must deny this IEEE requirement - earthing.
No earth ground means no effective protection - as even IEEE notes. Bud's protectors are not used where damage must not occur - telephone switching stations, radio and TV stations, 911 emergency response centers, etc. Why do they not use plug-in protectors? They do not waste money on protectors that can even damage adjacent electronics. Bud's own citation Figure 8 shows how ungrounded protectors even destroys a TV. Page 42 (paper page 33) shows TVs being destroyed because of ineffective and so profitable plug-in protector. A kid attaches an Xbox to the TV. Just another path that an adjacent protector may use to damage TVs. The Xbox and TV complete a destructive path to earth - same problem shown in Figure 8.
Plug-in protectors include a 'disconnect the protector from AC mains' circuit so that scary pictures do not occur. Disconnect the protector; leave appliance to fend for itself. No problem. Real protection was already inside the appliance anyway. Adjacent protector was there to enrich the manufacturer.
Some claim protectors are 'one shot' devices or 'fuses'. Why? If plug-in protection stayed connected, then these scary pictures result- http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?pageU6&parentU4 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm Best to disconnect - blow out fast - so that fire is not an option and so that only appliance internal protecton does all the work. Then the naive will spend more money on 'magic boxes'. Profits - not protection - is the objetive..
Numerous professional sites describe what is necessary for protection - earth ground. One whole day of reading from professionals say what Bud hopes you never learn are listed in in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe" http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA
Bud claims his protector will stop what three miles of sky could not. He will post incessantly to deny reality - deny those scary pictures.
Bud must deny what his own citations and authors say hoping you will not understand their technical points. Martzloff, who Bud cites often, even says plug-in protectors can contribute to appliance damage - a 1994 Martzloff paper:

Martzloff states in 1993 what is absolutely necessary for protection:

Bud is paid to promote myths and spins. Bud needs you to deny what provided protection - earthing. A protector either is a connecting device to earth ground OR is a scam that enriches Bud. Oh. He forgets to mention that part also? Telling half truths is how he operates. As a troll, he follows me everywhere 'cut and pasting' the company lies. He routinely will not quote what the IEEE demands for protection - earth ground. Spinning and lying is Bud's job.
Bud even misrepresents IEEE papers that warn about damage created by a plug-in protector. Bud hopes you don't understand how his protectors put those TVs at 8000 volts - destroy the TVs. Why? Surge found earth ground destructly via TVs because surge was not earthed when entering a building - no 'whole house' protector. Without a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth: No earth ground means no effective protection.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote: ..

...
This sure sounds like a personal issue. It seems that Bud has suggested some good ideas and supported them with references to accepted authorities like: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
What is the problem here? The accepted non-commercial references you have made don't seem to conflict with what Bud has written. They point out a different limited problem.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Bud's NIST pamphlet page 6 states how protection is provided:

You tell me. Bud says plug-in protectors have no earth ground AND need no earthing because they 'clamp'. Yes they clamp - which is also called shunt, connect, bond, or divert. Divert to what? NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, etc say earth ground. So Bud plays fast and loose with terms to confuse all. How to divert a surge to earth ground? Clamp, bond, shunt, connect - all mean same. Bud denies this to spin confusion.
A surge diverted / clamped / shunted to another wire is simply another path, destructively, through same adjacent appliance. Curious. We engineers found same when damage was autopsied. We traced a surge through a plug-in protector, through destroyed computer ICs, and into earth. Why was computer damaged? Protector had no dedicated earthing. Surge was clamped / shunted to earth destructively through computer.
Martzloff warns of the same damage "even when or perhaps because" of plug-in protectors. Quoted are Martzloff's own words.
As Bud admits, his protectors have no dedicated earthing wire. As Bud's own citations and authors repeatedly state - earthing provides protection. You don't see a problem?
Return to another Bud citation from Mike Holt page 42 Figure 8. How does that TV end up at 8000 volts? A plug-in protector did not have sufficient earthing. Ground wire was too long - too much impedance. Therefore TV is damaged by 8000 volts. As Martzloff notes, an adjacent protector can even contribute to appliance damage. We engineers knew that a decade earlier - because we saw it by doing an engineering analysis.
Bud plays fast and loose with reality to promote plug-in protectors. Where is the problem? Bud's own citation says earthing is required. IEEE Standards repeatedly state earthing is required for protection. And Bud admits his own protectors do not earth.
Anything that a plug-in protector might accomplish is already inside the appliance. But what a protector must do is shunt / divert / bond / clamp the destructive type of surge to earth ground. Bud even admits his plug-in protectors do not connect to earth. Therefore Bud's recommendations are in direct conflict with his own citations - and the IEEE, and industry professionals, and what has been historically installed for protection even 70 years ago ... The conflict is obvious. Bud lies to promote his defective product line. Meanwhile no earth ground means no effective protection.
Which is it? Earthing is not required as Bud promotes? Or earthing provides the protection as NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, Polyphaser, ARRL, US Air Force, US Army, all telephone companies, commercial radio and TV stations, .... all demand earthing for protection. Why? Protector is only as good as earth ground - which Bud must deny for self serving reasons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Take a deep breath Tom. Relax and realize that maybe you don't really understand the whole picture. If needed take your meds.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Joseph - earthing IS the protection. No way around reality. So important that earthing (and not a protector) is why munition igloos are directly struck - and munitions do not explode. Earthing is what makes telephone switching stations - connected to overhead wires - operate during every thunderstorm without damage. In each case, plug- in protectors are not used AND may even contribute to transistor damage.
Even the Air Force defines what is necessary for protection: US Air Force Instruction 32-1065 1 Oct 1998

Where are protectors located? As soon as practical where conductor enters the facility. That is a 'whole house' protector - not a useless plug-in device. Where does the Air Force require plug-in protectors? Never. Air Force does what telcos also do to not have surge damage. Install protectors with shot connection to earth.
What happens when a plug-in protector does not disconnect fast enough? Why must the protector circuit disconnect so fast and leave the appliance connected to AC mains? What happens when it does not abandon appliance protection fast enough? http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?pageU6&parentU4 http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm
Proven solutions come from manufacturers that you know as responsible. GE, Square D, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, and Siemens. Why then would you recommend a sold by manufacturers such as Monster Cable? Why would you recommend a plug-in protector that will not even claim to provide such protection in spec sheets? Even Bud's own citations describe what is necessary for protection - earthing. But even admits his companies protectors do not earth. So where is the protection?
Either a surge is shunted (clamped, diverted) or it is absorbed. That's it. Two choices. Joe - you tell me. How does a plug-in protector absorb what 3 miles of sky could not? No wonder Bud's citations show plug-in protector destroying a TV at 8000 volts. But then engineers traced same destruction previously. I personally traced and replaced every IC in the surge path to make the network working again. Bud's plug-in protector earthed a surge, destructively, through computers. Plug-in protector can't divert to what it does not have - earthing. Tell us how Bud's 'magic box' will stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? It cannot shunt (clamp) to earth. So how does it absorb surges?
Do you really know this stuff? Good. Then post that 'whole picture' I somehow never learned over so many decades. Don't make unsupported claims as Bud does. If you have another 'whole picture', then post it.
Meanwhile what did Orange County FL do to fix repeated surge damage to emergency response facilities? Did they buy plug-in protectors? Of course not. More damage was not acceptable. Orange County fixed the protection; that means earthing: http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
No earth ground means no effective protection. How many whole pictures do you need? A reality denied to sell plug-in devices such as Monster Cable's $100+ products (along with their $60 wire specially designed for speakers).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

No, it is not THE protection it is one protection, but not the one in question.
Earthing or grounding is very important from the standpoint of human safety from an insulation failure, but we are talking about surge issues and protection of the equipment from a short, but very high voltage spike. That voltage is measured between the neutral and the power and does not involve the "ground" While under normal operation the ground and the neutral are the same potential, there are times they are different.
Sorry you can't seem to see or understand the difference.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You have not grasped the various type of transients, do not understand why the IEEE defines what is necessary for protection, and a few other technical facts posted below. Destructive voltages are not between neutral and hot wire. That transient is made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances - and other reasons. Meanwhile, a 'whole house' protector also makes that type transient irrelevant.
What does the IEEE demand as necessary for surge protection? IEEE does not discuss differential voltage difference between two wires. That surge is trivial. Protection is about a surge that typically does electronics damage: IEEE Red Book:

IEEE Emerald Book (Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment)

Learn of many types of transients. To promote their product, plug- in protectors would have you believe all surge types are same. Nonsense. For example, you describe a surge that comes down a black (hot) wire and leaves on neutral (white) wire. This is not the typically destructive surge. Even utility power switching creates another and typically more destructive transient. What happens when a surge comes down any or all black, white, and green wires; and leaves via phone wire, wooden table, linoleum floor tile, or any other conductive material? Latter is the surge that does damage. When it leaves, where does it go? Earth ground.
Yes, for typically destructive surges, those otherwise non- conductive items become conductors. Also conductive are church steeple, concrete, or a tree. Items conductive to typically destructive surges are typically not conductive to trivial currents and voltages between two wires.
How great is voltage between wires? Wire insulation is only rated for 600 volts. Higher voltages simply cause breakdown - temporarily connect those wires together. But voltages that seek earth are typically 10+ times larger. What kind of surge puts 8000 volts on that TV? Not voltage between two wires. 8000 volts means a surge that seeks earth.
Bud's page 42 Figure 8 shows how a TV is damaged by 8000 volts. Why? Destructive surge seeks earth ground; is not between two wires. Because a plug-in protector was too close to TV, then the surge used that TV to obtain what? Earth ground. 8000 volts did not exist between two wires because of where the protector is located. 8000 volts would not exist between two wire if no protector existed. 8000 volts occurred because current is on any or all wires; finding earth destructively via a TV. A destructive type surge seeks earth - is not between two wires.
Does a telephone line protector in your NID or in the telco's CO sit between two wires? Of course not. Otherwise the protector could be located anywhere on those wires. But even 1950s protectors were not between wires:
http://www.inwap.com/inwap/chez/Phoneline.jpg
That protector connects each wire to an earthing ground lug. Each 'carbon' is beneath that hex head - from each phone wire to earthing. Why? Destructive surges with potentially higher voltages seek earth ground; do not seek the other wire. Surges between two wires are made irrelevant for numerous reasons including wire insulation breakdown voltage and by appliance design - an industry standard even 30+ years ago.
As demonstrated in a 1959 research project by Bodle and Gresh in the Bell System Technical Journal are hundreds of surges that would harm the CO because the surge seeks earth ground. Surges even on underground wires seek earth ground.
If a protector between two wires was sufficient, then that protector could be anywhere on wires. But an effective protector cannot be anywhere. Effective protector is located at the service entrance and connected short to earth ground; as even the Air Force demands. Effective protectors are best located distant from electronics. Telcos define that separation (between protector and electronics) as up to 50 meters. Why? A voltage difference between two wires may be shunted anywhere on those wires. But a surge that seeks earth ground - separation between protector and electronics improves protection. Therefore design of building and location of incoming wires affect how a protection 'system' is installed.
From a Sun Microsystem planning guide for server rooms Section 5.4.7:

Protection between two wires is completely irrelevant to building design and utility location. But destructive surges to a Sun Server means earthing. Earthing is why building design and utility location is part of that Sun mandated design. To be earthed, building and utility design determines where and how that protector is located. Why? Sun server destructive surges seek earth ground. Sun describes protection for their servers - properly grounded protectors.
What does a 'whole house protector connect to? Each wire is not connected to the other wire via protector. Each wire is connected to earth ground. Same as in the 1950s telco protector and in a Sun servier site. Effective protectors connect each wire to earth.
Above is a secondary protection 'system' where voltages between wires is irrelevant.. Also inspect the primary protection 'system'. Inspect what in a primary protection 'system'? Well what do typically destructive surges (with maybe ten times higher voltages) seek? http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
How big is that surge between black and white wires? For destructive surges that seek earth ground, a most minimal earthing path is for 50,000 amps. Why 50,000 amps? Protection 'system' is for surges - ie tens of thousands of amps - that may overwhelm protection already inside appliances. Show me a 50,000 amp surge exists between black (hot) and white (neutral) wire? It does not exist. Large current surges seek earth ground. Such surge made trivial by the 'whole house' protector and made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances.
Qwest defines what is necessary in their Publication 77355:

Why low impedance? High current surges that seek earth ground are radio frequency currents. Typically occur in microseconds. What is the most common source of such surges? Microsecond type surges include lightning. And what does lightning seek? Not a voltage difference between two wires. Typically destructive surges - ie lightning - seek one thing: earth ground. For surges between wires - low 'resistance' is sufficient. For surges that do serious damage - ie lightning - low 'impedance' earthing is required. Just another reason why a protector's location (ie 'less than 10 feet' from earth ground) is so essential for surge protection.
How many industry professionals need I quote - or do you still listen to a plug-in protector promoter Bud? IEEE is quite blunt what is required for effective protection: earthing. What is the most destructive surge? Lightning. What does it create? Massive currents on any or all wires that seek earth ground. Voltages between wires are so trivial as to be made irrelevant even by appliance design - and other reasons above.
There is no major voltage difference between wires. Now I understand why you were so easily decieved by the myths. Your 'threat' is made irrelevant even by protection inside appliances. The short and major spike seeks earth ground - is not between two wires. Please learn the techology. This was common knowledge even long before any of us existed. You are worried about surges that typically do not exist - but are hyped to promote mythical power strip protection.

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

If you car to post a single valid link to a non-commercial authoritative site that supports and explains your views, I will be happy to view it and comment on it.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My favorite part to Tom's usual rant above is this:
"What happens when a surge comes down any or all black, white, and green wires; and leaves via phone wire, wooden table, linoleum floor tile, or any other conductive material? Latter is the surge that does damage. When it leaves, where does it go? Earth ground. "
In the above, he acknowledges that a surge can come in via the power line and then exit via everything from a phone wire to a wood table. Yet he refuses to acknowledge that it could also leave via a point of use surge protector shunting the surge to ground. And it would seem that would be a much lower impedance path than a wood table.
Where Tom goes astray is he starts with good advice, which is that surge protection on the AC panel with a good ground is the most effective and good practice. But then he quickly decends into nonsense, when he claims that point of use protectors offer no protection at all and are actually destructive. Another of his rants that I like is that all appliances have surge protection already built into them. Hmmm, let me think.... What would I rather have get blown due to a surge? The MOV in a $20 plug in protector or the MOV in a $2000 HDTV?
Here's some of what UL has to say about surge protectors. They specifically talk about the point of use type, say they rate them and don't say they are ineffective.
http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html You're at your home computer when suddenly the lights flicker. Your computer screen fades to black; then copy is restored. Sound familiar? You've just experienced a power surge. Power surges -- also known as transient voltage surges-- are brief spikes of power that can travel through power lines. Power surges can permanently damage computers, televisions, fax machines and other home appliances that contain microprocessors and sensitive electronic components.
Many people assume that surge suppressors can protect their home from lightning damage. Surge suppressors are not lightning protection devices - they cannot protect your home or your home's internal electrical wiring from a direct strike. Surge suppressors can, however, protect your equipment from voltage surges caused by unexpected occurrences such as a utility pole downed by a storm.
Surges can also generate from inside the home. For instance, appliances such as furnaces, air conditioners and vacuum cleaners can cause power surges in your home's electrical system when turned on or off. And in some cases, remote lightning strikes cans cause surges. However, UL Listed transient voltage surge suppressors (TVSS) can reduce the risk of such damage.
The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them; you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some cases, a surge may have a higher energy level than the device can handle. When this happens, the surge suppressor may be damaged and lose its ability to provide protection against future surges.
Some surge suppressors look very similar to multiple-outlet power strips but obviously have additional features to suppress surges. Other surge suppressors resemble common plug-in adapters. Not all power strips and adapters offer surge suppression, so make sure the product and product packaging clearly states "UL Listed Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor."
UL evaluates surge suppressors for fire, electric shock and personal injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a "suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V. Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.
Whatever surge suppression protection you're looking for, make
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 2, 1:18 pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Does all of a surge only go down one wire or only down another wire? Of course not. And yet going down only one wire must happen for effective surge protection. Trader, it does not matter if some of a surge takes that path to ground. Most all of it must. That ground wire is only low resistance - not low impedance. Therefore too much surge finds other destructive paths. You are still denying that high impedance even after page 42 Figure 8 shows high impedance - 2000 volts.
Surge comes down a black wire seeking what? Earth ground. Surge is shunted from black wire to green wire by protector ... still seeking earth ground. Some surge current uses green 'safety ground' wire to mains breaker box. Some current goes into computer motherboard, through modem, and to earth via phone line. Not all current goes destructively through computer as trader claims. Large current also passed through and destroys modem. Why? All current did not get conducted by a high impedance safety ground wire that is at 2000 volts. Decades ago an adjacent protector earthed a surge destructively through powered off computers - damage proven by following and replacing all damaged ICs. Another unbiased source - Martzloff in an IEEE paper - also warns of same damage "even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances. "
Joseph Meehan - repeatedly posted were links to non-commercial authoritative sites such as Martzloff and IEEE. Later you ask for non- commercial citations. Why do you keep asking that question after information is provided? Why the standard denials?
trader also does it again. He assumes safety ground wire is a perfect conductor because he does not understand impedance. As an electrician, he confuses resistance with impedance. The non- commercial page 42 Figure 8 shows 2000 volts 'end to end' on that wire. Why? Excessive wire impedance. Because it is not a 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection, too much wire impedance and 2000 destructive volts. trader remains in denial mode?
trader cannot grasp this concept: wire impedance. trader - why is the protector in Figure 8 at 2000 and 8000 volts? Why ignore excessive wire impedance even in this 'mike holt' provided figure? But again I say to you - learn about wire impedance. Look at figure 8: why a TV is at 8000 volts. Wire to earth ground is too long, too many sharp bends, splices, etc. Too much impedance means ineffective earthing. So where does that 8000 volts find earth ground? Destructively via an adjacent TV. The non-commercial page 42 Figure 8 again demonstrates Martzloff's problem with plug-in protectors - that can even contribute to appliance damage.

Same myth was written by an English major in HowStuffWorks. The vacuum cleaner is so destructive that everyone troops to hardware stores weekly to replace clock radios and digital clocks? Oh. Internal protection makes vacuum cleaner 'surges' irrelevant? Exactly. Trader repeatedly posts that claim and I repeatedly reply with this example. Notice how electronics inside a microwave oven are routinely damaged by the furnace? What protected appliances not on a surge protector? Internal protection that was industry standard even 30+ years ago. Why does trader not know of this internal protection even inside HDTVs?
But trader says we are all replacing dimmer switches weekly due to damage created by refrigerators. Appliances must contain internal protection. Anything that plug-in protector might accomplish is already inside the appliance. Internal appliance protection demands one properly earth a 'whole house' protector so that internal protection is not overwhelmed.
Why does trader deny that internal protection? Trader assumes that protectors fail or vaporize to provide protection. He was provided MOV datasheets that say protectors must not fail. And yet he remains fixated on this 'vaporize' concept. Effective protectors earth lightning strikes and must remain functional. Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors are properly sized.
Meanwhile a surge arrives at an HDTV and surge protector. The protector is so grossly undersized as to disconnect as fast as possible - to smoke. HDTV is then left to fend for itself. No problem. HDTV has sufficient internal protection. But the nave proclaim "a surge protector sacrificed itself to protect my TV". Wrong. A surge too small to harm an HDTV struck both TV and surge protector simultaneously. Only the surge protector was grossly undersized - vaporized - so that the nave will promote more sales.
Surge protectors contain MOVs. MOVS are rated for 8/20 and 10/1000 microsecond waveforms. Why these waveforms? Because MOVs are designed for a surge that creates those waveforms: Lightning. Surge protection is installed so that lightning does not do damage. Protection that also makes other transients irrelevant.
But again, trader denies protection already inside appliances - as he denies wire impedance and that 2000 volts - as he denies protectors are for lightning protection - as he denies how an adjacent protector can even contribute to appliance damage.
Protectors without that short ('less than 10 foot') connection to a single point earth ground cannot provide protection. A protector is only a connecting device to earth ground. That 'magic box' does not stop what 3 miles of sky could not.
Wire impedance is why all telcos install Central Office protectors ON an earth ground AND up to 50 meters distant from electronics. Wire impedance is why Orange County solved surge damage by enhancing the earthing system; did not install plug-in protectors: http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
Wire impedance is why the Air Force requires protector located "as soon as practical where the conductor enters the interior of the facility." Surge protection is about low impedance and a single point earth ground. Effective protectors make that dedicated 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. Plug-in protectors do not make that connection AND do not claim to protect from the type of surges that typically cause damage. What do the typically destructive surges do? Come down any or all wires seeking earth ground, destructively, through appliances. Surge overwhelms protection already inside all appliances. Surge must be earthed before it can enter a building. Effective protectors make the typically destructive surge (which not created by vacuum cleaners) irrelevant. That means a short connection to earth. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Martzloff said in the same paper "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [mulitport suppressor]." Martzloff consistently says plug-in surge suppressors are effective, as he did in the NIST guide.

Because you have NEVER posted a link to a site that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Nor have your quotes from sources ever said plug-in suppressors are not effective. Many of your quotes are from sources that, in fact, said plug-in suppressors are effective, like the IEEE guide, and Martzloff above.

A readers guide to w_'s rant: w_ refers to the IEEE guide, not 'mike holt'. The figure shows a surge on a CATV source with 2 TVs connected. TV1 is protected by a plug-in surge suppressor. 2000V does not appear at the TVs. The plug-in suppressor at TV1 did NOT contribute to damage, but reduced the voltage at TV2 from 10,000V to 8,000V. But the point of the figure is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required". The IEEE says the earthing path for the surge is not through the TVs or branch circuit. "The vast majority of the incoming lightning surge current flows through" the earthing wire from the CATV ground block to the power service. This figure part of the IEEE guide explanation of how plug-in suppressors work. But the explanation violates w_'s religious beliefs in earthing.
Other points the IEEE makes here: "If the CATV, satellite, or phone cables do not enter the building near the service entrance, the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." It is common to have entry points for phone, CATV or satellite to be distant from the power service. That prevents establishing a "single point ground".
Since CATV entry ground blocks do not limit the voltage from core conductor to shield, that voltage, according to the IEEE guide, is only limited to the breakdown voltage of F connectors, typically 2000-4000V. "There is obviously the possibility of damage to TV tuners and cable modems from the very high voltages that can be developed, especially from nearby lightning." CATV wires going through a plug-in suppressor will have that voltage limited.

Only the naive would buy a surge suppressor that is grossly undersized. Suppressors with very high ratings are readily available.
Only the naive would post an argument requiring a grossly undersized suppressor.
Only the naive would think a HDTV could handle any surge that hits it.

The religious belief in earthing. As explained by the IEEE guide, plug in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the surge suppressor, not earthing or stopping.
So may words, so little that is minimal relevant to plug-in suppressors.
The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
And w_ still can't find a link that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More standard 'cut and paste' replies from Bud as he follows me everywhere - as a troll - to promote grossly overpriced and unearthed protectors.
What does a protector do? Connects surges to earth ground. Earth provides protection when a surge does not and need not enter the building. Bud's page 42 Figure 8 shows exactly what a protector does. No classic and necessary 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. So it earthed a surge - 8000 volts - destructively through a TV. But then the protector did as designed. Protectors only connect surges to earth. Protector simply connected that surge to earth, destructively, via a TV.
Same problem exists when a kid connects an Xbox to a TV. Bud's reply: you must teach the kid how to connect his Xbox. So it is the kid's fault if damage occured - because Bud's ineffective protector was used? Yes, according to Bud.
Responsible manufacturers provide effective solutions. Products from GE, Siemens, Square D, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton and other responsible manufacturers are found in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Bud will lie incessantly in fear. He will deny that some of these sufficiently sized products can be found in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. He fears you might discover how much less expensive that effective solution is.
Bud's own citations define what is required of a protector:

As demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8 in http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversio ... No earth ground means no effective protection Effective 'whole house' protectors properly earthed 'less than 10 feet' mean all protection inside all TVs (and all other household appliances - even smoke detectors and bathroom GFCIs) are not overwhelmed. But if you learn this, then Bud's income may be harmed.
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.