Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?

Page 2 of 2  

w_tom wrote:
Just a repetition of the same bullcrap.
For reliable information the IEEE guide on surges and suppression at: http://tinyurl.com/2qrszf and the NIST guide at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf are recommended.
Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Where are your links links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective w_? There should be thousands of them. Why should anyone believe you if you can't find links that support your views?
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bud's own citations demonstrate why real world protector manufacturers sell 'whole house' protectors. How to identify a real world protector? 1) Product has the dedicated earthing wire for that 'less than 10 foot' connection. 2) Manufacturer discusses earthing. Bud who promotes for a 'mythical protector' manufacturer will not even deny his own citations. Bud has posted in hundreds of posts how earthing is not required - how his 'magic box' protector will somehow stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not.
And so we go to his own citations where a plug-in protector puts 8000 volts through the adjacent TV. He cannot even dispute that a kid with an Xbox may completely compromise 'plug-in' protection.
Bud says we must educated kids so damage is not created when they connect that Xbox. Bud says we must install $2000 or $3000 of plug- in protectors - one on every appliance - so that the damage on page 42 Figure 8 does not happen. What do real world protector manufacturers do for less money? They install and earth one 'whole house' protector. A solution even sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. A solution not provided by manufacturers such as Monster Cable. Responsible manufacturers that sell 'whole house' protectors are Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Leviton, GE, Intermatic, Siemens and others. Where in that list are plug-in protector manufacturers such as Monster Cable? Well responsible manufacturers don't sell 'magical' speaker wire for $60 either. But Bud recommend thousands of dollars of plug-in protectors just so one protector does not 8000 volts destroy the adjacent TV - as on page 42 Figure 8.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Links still not shown. Where are your links?

Ho-hum - the religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressors. They do not work primarily by earthing.

Ho-hum again. Repeating: And I can only quite w_ - It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger. .

Bullcrap. I recommend reading the IEEE guide which includes earthing as one of the major protection methods. I *repeat* the explanation in the IEEE guide plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

How stupid. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Ho-hum #3 - already covered. The plug-in suppressor *reduced* the surge voltage at another TV, but the IEEE says "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required". Apparently too technical for w_.

In a thread a few days ago 2 people looked at online sites and found: Lowes had NO whole house suppressors. Home Depot had no whole house suppressors near $50. The 2 suppressors available had no specs available from Home Depot or the manufacturer.
Both the IEEE and NIST say plug-in suppressors are effective.
And still missing - links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Could it be nobody agrees with you w_? Where are your links? And include a link for the $50 whole house suppressor.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bud knows because he saw it on the web. 'Whole house' protectors from responsible manufacturers have sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50 for years now. Bud knows that cannot be true because he did not see it on the web. If he actually did this stuff, then he might discover 'whole house' protectors - some selling for less than $50. But that would harm sales of ineffective plug-in protectors. Easier is to lie and deny.
How ineffective? Bud's various IEEE and NIST citations state a protector must connect to ground. Protectors work by grounding surges:

Bud admits his protectors have no ground. So he denies earthing is necessary. What do IEEE Standards (IEEE Red Book, Emerald Book, etc) repeatedly define necessary? Earthing. What happens when earth ground is too far away? Page 42 Figure 8 shows a protector earthing a surge - 8000 volts destructively - via an adjacent TV. Bud says this damage will not happen with $2000 or $3000 more protectors for virtually every household appliance. $50 for one properly sized 'whole house' protector or $3000 that may also create those scary pictures.
Spend many thousands of dollars and still suffer surge damage because a kid connects his Xbox to a TV? Yes, that is what Bud called effective protection.
Bud ignores Page 42 Figure 8 from his own citation. His own citations shows damage to household appliance created by the plug-in protector
Another of his citations say:

Informed consumers install what is also standard where direct lightning strikes routinely do no damage. They earth. One 'whole house' protector earths for ALL household appliances. Protector not located on flammable rugs or desktops that would do this - the scary pictures: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?pageU6&parentU4 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
No earth ground means no effective protection. But if a plug-in protector cost more money, then it must work better - to enrich plug- in manufacturers. And so the troll Bud who follows me everywhere will post more denials. Cites are quotes from his own citations. Even his own citations say earthing is necessary. To promote profitable plug- in protectors, Bud must even deny 'whole house' protectors in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

The religious belief in earth ground - because plug-in suppressors do not work by earthing, for w_ they cannot possibly work. But the IEEE guide explains they primarily work by clamping.
Nothing new - the same drivel. Attempts again to take 2 sources that say plugin suppressors are effective and make them say the opposite. w_ still cant find the mythical $50 whole house suppressor - if they exist provide a link - why should anyone think they exist.
And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors are NOT effective - except w_. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective. Anyone can read the sources.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even quotes from Bud's citations show on page 42 Figure 8 how a plug- in protector can create damage to the adjacent TV. Another citation defines what is necessary for protection - earth ground:

Bud says plug-in protectors don't require earthing. Somehow they will instead protect by 'clamping'. Well that is not what his own citations say.
Meanwhile all appliances, including GFCIs, contain protection. Protection that can be overwhelmed if a surge is not earthed where it enters a building. Properly earth a surge at the breaker box and internal protection inside all household appliances is not overwhelmed. So what is required to make the 'whole house' protector so effective? Earthing that both meets and exceeds post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. Bud's own citations define earthing as essential to protection. IEEE Standards define earthing for protection.
Bud now replies by 'attacking the messenger'. He cannot deny Page 42 Figure 8 - his own citation that shows a plug-in protector creating 8000 volts damage to an adjacet TV.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like Bud, instead of religous rants, I'm still waiting for any credible reference that says plug-in surge protectors are totally ineffective. Or even better, that they cause, rather than prevent damage.
Tom's whole argument is so full of holes and contradictions, it's quite silly. Here's another glaring one. Tom claims a plug in surge protector at best can't work, or even worse, will cause damage. Then he proceeds to point to the fact that common and cheap appliances all have built in surge protection which doesn work. Well, isn't it strange that putting an MOV inside a plug in protector is a disaster, but it suddenly becomes a good and effective protector when put into a $50 VCR? Hmmm, would seem the VCR has the same long path to any earth ground that the plug in protector has. No, wait! It actually has a path a few feet longer! Yet, inside the VCR, no problems with high impedance path to ground or being able to deal with what "miles of air could not."
And again, let me think. Which MOV would I rather have take most of a 2000V surge? The one in a $25 plug in suppressor or the one in a $2000 HDTV?
Now, for the religous minded, a disclaimer:
I did not say that a whole house protector, with proper grounding is not the best first line of defense. And I did not say that all services don't need to be properly grounded where they enter the house. All I said was that plug-in protectors do provide some protection and that they can be good choices for a tiered protection strategy, or for situations where you can't install main panel protection, ie apartment renters, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Seems you are a dummy Joseph.
Neither the IEEE or NIST guides consider hot-to-neutral transients irrelevant. If they are irrelevant, whole house protectors are irrelevant.

A major hallucination. Please get medical help.

<etc>
The Emerald Book has plug-in suppressors among the devices that provide protection. Why are plug-in suppressors in the Emerald Book w_?

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in surge suppressors should be multi-port. ALL signal and power wires to protected equipment need to run thorough the suppressor. Repeating yet again, the voltage on ALL wires is clamped to the common ground at the surge suppressor. There is no damaging voltage between power and phone wires downstream from the suppressor. The primary protection, as explained in the IEEE guide, is clamping, not earthing. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say that protects the equipment connected to the suppressor.
But I guess both the NIST and IEEE forgot about the wood table and linoleum floor.

It is not my page. It is the IEEEs page.
Trying to extract some meaning from rather illiterate writing - all surges in the illustrations are between 2 wires (or sets of wires).

Not according to the text. The IEEE says the vast majority of the incoming lightning surge current flows through the earthing wire from the CATV ground block to the power service. The earthing current through the TV or plugin suppressor is minor according to the IEEE. The surge is earthed, but the earthing is not through the TV or plug-in suppressor.

Assuming this means at the 2nd TV, that is true. If there was no plug-in suppressor at the 1st TV, there would not be 8,000V at the 2nd TV, it would be 10,000V.
The whole point of this (fig.8) discussion in the IEEE guide is to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required.
And the point of all of this in the IEEE guide is do explain how plug-in suppressors work. To protect his religious belief in earthing, w_ has to twist the IEEE explanation to say the opposite.
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 20004000V. 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.
There follow lots of quotes. Few are relevant. None say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
And, as always, no links from w_ that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Only his religious beliefs and distortions of sources. Where are your links?
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
More of the same w_ bullcrap repeated.
Partly in response to Joseph (sorry about the length):
w_ believes surge protection is only possible through earthing. For example: Protection is defined by its earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection. Earthing - not the protector - is protection. Earth ground is the protection.
Plug-in surge suppressors do not have good earthing connections. So according to w_, plug-in suppressors cannot possibly work. Unfortunately the IEEE guide explains how they work - they clamp the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Because that is not earthing, it is not valid to w_. His belief in earthing is unchallengeable and constitute a religious view. w_ has never posted a link that says plug-in suppressors do NOT work. I have posted 2 very reputable links, the IEEE and NIST, that says plug-in suppressors do work. There are plenty more. (The IEEE link, incidentally, originally came from w_.)
w_ is evangelical in his belief and searches with google-groups for surge so he can share his drivel on plug-in suppressors. This is at least the 3rd time I have seen w_s surge drivel on this newsgroup.
Not having sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective w_ has to misquote, misconstrue and distort sources or try to discredit.
Among them is Franois Martzloff who was the surge guru at the NIST and has written a lot about surges and surge suppression. w_ takes quotes about earthing out of Martzloff papers where the same paper clearly says plugin suppressors are effective. In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that says plug-in suppressors are effective.
On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ misconstrued the views of Arshad Mansoor 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 surge equalization type [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."
w_ takes quotes about earthing out of IEEE standards, but the IEEE clearly says plug-in suppressors work in the Emerald Book, which is a standard, and the IEEE guide.
w_ has only his religious belief in earthing and apparently cant process anything that conflicts with that view (see cognitive disonance).
Having no technical arguments w_ manufactures issues. And he frequently posts scary pictures that his own sources say were for an old UL standard - those suppressors have not been sold for 9 years.
And anyone who disagrees with w_'s religious view must be discredited.
> Bud's job is to promote plug-in protectors. Therefore he will lie > as necessary to sell more plug-in protectors. > > Bud is paid to promote myths and spins.
My only association with surge protectors is that I have two of them.
Two posts ago my views were wildly misconstrued
w_ argues for whole house protectors. They are good, and are in both the IEEE and NIST guides, as is grounding and single point ground.
BUT THE *ONLY* QUESTION IS WHETHER PLUG-IN SUPPRESSORS ARE EFFECTIVE.
If anyone has doubts look at the IEEE guide at: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf and/or the NIST guide at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf Both are have excellent information on surges and surge protection in general.
And both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in surge protectors are effective.
Then find w_s sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. There are none.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

AMEN!
w_tom is what is commonly referred to as a "usenet kook". In the past, he has been chastised for posting advice that could easily have killed anyone who followed it. Do not believe ANYTHING this crackpot says.
Beware. nuff said.
CWM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Same Charlie attacked another poster for only asked what DSL fiters do? Charlie. He asked whether it was a high pass or low pass filter. You replied, "yes". That was the entire technical reply in a post that mocked that poster. Nothing new in your behavior here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

DSL filters ARE low pass and high pass filters, asshat. My answer was 100% correct, unlike all of yours. Writing lengthy tirades sprinkled with improperly used technical terms to bullshit the unwary does not make what you say correct.
CWM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 27, 7:19 am, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Hi Everyone,
Thank you very much for all your kind suggestions. I think I will get myself some Point Surge Protectors. I already have a Lightning system (big copper wires and Franklin Rods), and Surge Arrestors on the Power panels.
The ones I was thining of getting were the Leviton 8280-W Duplex Decora Surge Receptacles. They are I think designed for Hospital use and had an alarm to tell you when they no longer protect. I think there is a cap on E-bay selling them for about $US 18-20 each.
Thank you again for your kind help.
Warmest regards, Mike.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 29, 11:50 am, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Remember what a citation from Bud shows on page 43 Figure 8: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
Adjacent TV destroyed by 8000 volts because a plug-in protector was too close AND because earthing was not properly installed.
Nothing in your last post says you had any surge protection. Protection requires and is defined by earthing that meets and exceed post 1990 code. Protectors in a breaker box means nothing. One million dollars of protectors in the breaker box and earthing that is too far away means no protection. Your post confuses 'surge arrestor' with protection. It (just like the point of use protector) is not and does not claim to be protection.
Each protection layer is only defined by one thing - earthing point. Above discusses secondary protection 'system' - 'whole house' protector that is 'less than 10 feet' to earth. Also inspect your primary protection 'system': http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Why do others not mention your primary protection 'system' - no profits. Learn from his citation - how plug-in protectors can damage the adjacent appliance in Figure 8. Also inspect what he will not discuss - your primary protection 'system'.
BTW, its alarm does not report when the protector has degraded. It reports when a surge has so excessively exceeded manufacturer specs as to vaporize - on the verge of fire - what also creates those scary pictures.
How are they made safer for hospitals? They disconnect from AC mains much faster - so that appliance is left to fend for itself. By disconnecting a protector as fast as possible - with the 'first whiff of a surge' - then scary pictures are avoided. Fortunately the appliance already has protection. But now a myth about protector providing protection has been promoted. If alarming, then either you have a fire or the protector cut out long before protection was needed. But again, that is what those scary picture are all about - protectors so grossly undersized as to provide no protection.
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.