How to ground electric outlets over a slab?

Page 2 of 2  
wrote:

It isn't magic, it is just energy that gets converted to heat in the MOV., That works until the MOV burns up. That is why MOVs are rated by the amount of energy they can convert and how fast.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 30, 4:23 pm, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Let's view those numbers. The protector is rated for how many hundred joules? It will somehow absorb the hundreds of thousands of joules in a surge? That is what bud promotes.
Meanwhile, even bud's citation (page 6) says what the effective protector does. It does not absorb surge energy:

Not absorb or stop a surge. Instead, MOVs divert (connect, bond, conduct, shunt) energy harmlessly into earth. No wonder every facility that has no surge damage also does better earthing.
NIST then states on page 17:

Why? Earth ground is the protection. Or as Dr Ken Schneider (?) says:

Where are thousands of joules absorbed? In a protector rated for hundreds of joules? In a protector rated to dissipate at most, tens of watts? Of course not. Surge protection means massive surge energy gets connected and dissipated harmlessly in earth - not inside the protector.
A surge that does not enter the building will not overwhelm protection inside every appliance. Just another reason why telcos use 'whole house' protectors, better earthing, and no plug-in protectors. Just another reason why every wire that enters every CO first goes underground, connects to well earthed 'whole house' protectors, and typically locate the switching computers up to 50 meters separated from the protectors. All this so that any surge is harmlessly dissipated in earth - what provides protection.
Let's view those numbers. Notice no plug-in protector even claims to provide that protection. bud must say anything to avoid that fact and essential purpose of earthing: to harmlessly absorb surges energy. A protector (a diverting device) is only as effective as its earth ground. Hunderd joule MOVs do not work by absorbing hundreds of thousands of joules from surges. Which is what a protector must do to claim surge protection is its numeric specifications.
Solution to household surge damage starts with inspecting earth ground for the secondary protection system. And yes, these is also another (primary) protection system.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

w is not able to understand simple physics.
Francois Martzloff was the NIST guru on surges, wrote the NIST guide, and has many published technical papers. One of them looks at a MOV on a branch circuit of 10-50 meters with surges to the power service of 2,000-10,000A (the maximum with any reasonable probability of occurring, at least for a house).
Surprisingly, the maximum energy dissipated was 35 Joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 Joule or less. That is because at about 6,0000V there is arc-over from service hot bus to the enclosure. After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of volts. In US services, the enclosure is connected to the equipment ground wires, the neutral wires and the earthing system. Arc-over dumped most of the incoming energy to earth. In addition, the impedance of the branch circuit wiring greatly limits the current that can reach the MOV. Surges are very short duration, so the inductance of the wire is much more important than the resistance.
The higher energies were for a 10M branch circuit and, even more surprising, the lower current surges below 5,000A. Contrary to intuition, at all branch circuit lengths the energy dissipation at the MOV was lower as the surge current went up. That was because the MOV acted to clamp the voltage at the service panel. With the short branch circuit and lowest surge currents, the MOV prevented arc-over. Higher current surges forced the voltage up faster, causing arc-over faster and more energy was dumped to earth.
MOVs in both service panels and plug-in suppressors do not protect by absorbing energy. But they absorb some energy in the process of protecting.
Also, stated Joule ratings are for a single event - one surge that puts the MOV at its defined end of life (but still functional). If the energy hits are much smaller, the cumulative energy rating is much higher. For example a MOV might have a (single event) rating of 1,000J. If the individual hits are 14J the cumulative energy rating might be 13,000J. High ratings give a much longer life than you might expect.
For the reasons above, a plug-in suppressor with high ratings is not likely to ever fail. That is one reason some manufacturers can provide protected equipment warranties.

Complete nonsense. Some manufacturers even have protected equipment warranties.
Still missing - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "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.
--
bud--

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

So the 100 plug-in protectors saw no surge energy - nothing that could harm appliances - when one 'whole house' protector was properly earthed. Arcing or diverting surge energy harmlessly in earth means no energy for the protector to absorb - no appliance damage.
Why buy fifty $25 or $150 per appliance protectors when protection is made irrelevant by one 'whole house' protector? One 'whole house' protectors selling for less than $50 in Lowes makes maybe $50,000 in plug-in protectors irrelevant? Whose profit margins are being protected?
Why do bud's plug-in protectors see no energy? If that energy is properly diverted to earth before entering the building, then no surge exists to overwhelm protection already inside every appliance.
One 'whole house' protector means no plug-in protectors are needed AND eliminates reasons for these scary pictures from fire departments, fire marshals, etc: 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 http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 / http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm
Scary pictures - just another reason for earthing destructive surges harmlessly where? Outside the building. . Keep that threat away from papers on a desk or the carpet. No wonder telcos don't waste money on plug-in protectors. Just another reason for earthing one 'whole house' protector. It costs how much in Lowes?
So where is that 'plug-in protector' manufacturer spec that claims protection? Maybe I overlooked it?
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

There were not 100 suppressors and there was no service panel suppressor. w is hallucinating again.

There is voltage and energy that can damage connected equipment.
The NIST guide suggests that the major cause of damage to electronics is high voltage between power and signal wires. That is a separate issue from surges on power wires.

Repeating from the NIST guide: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."
Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltages from developing between power and signal wires.

Provide a source that says protection is "inside every appliance".
Protection, if it exists, is typically MOVs. How can MOVs protect when there is no short connection to an earth ground? No earth ground means no protection.

w refuses to understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since 1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.

w always overlooks it. His religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

And the religious belief in earthing. Why aren't airplanes crashing every day. Or do they drag an earthing chain?
Still no source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
And still no answers to 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - Where is a source that says protection is “inside every appliance”?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--


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

<http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
>

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

One of w's favorite lies. Wouldn't be necessary if poor w had valid technical arguments.

Another of w's favorite lies.
In the IEEE example: - A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it. - "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." - In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector." - w_'s favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection.
It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example damages the second TV.

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 [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
On alt.engineering.electrical, w similarly misconstrued the views of Arshad Mansoor, another upside down house author, 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."
In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that also says plug-in suppressors are effective.

Another of w's favorite lies.
Specs have been provided often, such as about a year ago in this newsgroup: http://tinyurl.com/6alnza Specs are just ignored by w.

w is fond of inventing what others say.
Poor w's religious blinders prevent him from reading the explanation in the IEEE guide of how plug-in suppressors work. Repeating: Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.

Poor sensitive w is insulted by reality.

w's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).
Still missing - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

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

Cut and paste the same half truths. Post insults. And still no manufacturer spec that even claims that protection. No wonder telcos all over the world waste no money on bud's products.
Page 42 Figure 8 - a surge protector was so effective as to earth that surge 8000 volts through the adjacent TV? bud calls that protection! He pretends Page 42 Figure 8 does not exist. And pretends that Martzloff does not define the same damage in his 1994 IEEE paper:

bud will repost the same half truths repeatedly because sale promoters are taught to always post the last word. bud must keep posting. With profits so obscene, even I would do what bud does.
bud will not answer the OP's problem. Plug-in protectors don't need earth ground to magically stop what three miles of sky could not. The OP should start an examination of the earth ground system or upgrade earth ground to meet and exceed post 1990 code requirements (details posted previously). If the existing system cannot be inspected, then best is to install a new earthing system so that all incoming utilities make the same short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to that electrode system.
bud's protectors don't need no ground. Their few hundred joules will magically make hundreds of thousands of joules surges disappear. Or his new claim. The protector only absorbs one or two joules. Funny. One or two joules means protection inside every appliance makes that surge irrelevant. Why spend so much money on a protector when one or two joules cannot harm anything?
Earth ground is essential so that surge protectors can do what the NIST, IEEE , telcos, US Air Force, munitions dumps, etc require - a short connection to divert surge energy harmlessly into earth. How curious. That is what every telco does everywhere in the world to not have damage. Telcos don't waste money on what bud sells. After all, telcos first demand specifications. bud cannot provide any specifications. Where are bud's specs that claim that protection?
. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground ... as was true 100 years ago and is true anywhere that surge damage cannot occur. bud claims his plug-in protectors magically stop what three miles of sky could not. A sales promoter will say anything to close the deal.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

w believes that the IEEE and NIST guides are half truths.

w is insulted by the IEEE and NIST guides.

The lie repeated.

You mean a telco switch? That is high amp? And hard wired? And that has thousands of phone wires that would have to go through a suppressor?
And they aren't "my products".

Another lie repeated.

Martzloff said: "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]."
Poor w has to twist what sources really say to protect his religious belief in earthing.

w has repeated the lies above repeatedly.

The OPs problem was grounding outlets. I provided an answer. w has not.
w dragged the thread into his religious crusade against plug-in suppressors.

The OP did not have a problem with the earthing of his power system.

The village idiot ignores Martzloff's technical paper, which I summarized. Just like he ignores everything that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

Everyone is in favor of earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and the NIST say they are.

Ho-hum - the religious belief in earthing.
Ho-hum - still no source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Ho-hum - still no answers to 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"? - How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they drag an earthing chain?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

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

Oh, would you two get a room, already?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IEEE's Page 42 Figure 8 - bud's surge protector earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV. bud routinely denies what even his own citation says. Also ignores 'scary pictures' - a fire threat that most every fire department has seen.
Every bud citation says what is necessary to have an effective protector. Earth ground. Also provided were quotes from a long list of responsible people and companies that say the same thing - including Southwest Bell, Sun Microsystems, US Air Force, and the Lightning Safety Institute.
And again, bud forgets to provide numeric specs. He cannot post protection. No plug-in protector manufacturer claims that protection. bud knows that posting nasty insults will get others to forget reality - spend $25 or $150 for a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts. Scams are bud.
Meanwhile, telcos all over the world waste no money on what bud sells. When damage cannot happen, in every case, 'whole house' protectors are earthed. Power strip protectors are banned (see 'scary pictures' to appreciate why). A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - as every bud citation even says. Page 42 Figure 8 - the protector earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through the TV. bud pretends IEEE's Page 42 Figure 8 does not exist. Otherwise profits would be threatened. If he posts more nasty insults, you might forget Page 42 Figure 8 - why telcos don't waste money on power strip protectors.
bud will keep posting nasty insults. It works to protect the scam – selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for $25 or $150.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

The lie repeated.

What does every citation say? Plug-in suppressors are effective.

What does NONE of the quotes say? None agree with w that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

The lie repeated.

By who??? w 'forgets' to say.

Ho-hum - the religious mantra.
Still never seen - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"? - How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they drag an earthing chain?
And (with some overlap): 1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no. 2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground? 3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--


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

Effective for what? Enriching you as long as you continue promoting myths? From your own citation:

By your own admission, plug-in protectors do not have a dedicated and short (ie less than 10 foot).connection to earth. Effective at what? Effective at protecting from a type of surge that is typically not destructive? Yes. It protects from the surge it is designed to protect from - the type that iws typically not destructive.
bud will post endlessly to avoid the bottom line. His protectors do not even claim to protect from a typically destructive surges. Can even contribute to appliance damage if a 'whole house' protector is not installed. bud refuses to provide even one spec that claims protection. Not even one plug-in protector manufacturer will make that claim.
Telcos, that must never suffer damage, do not waste money on bud's plug-in protectors. Why waste money on ineffective protection - especially when specs do not even claim that protection?
And then the scary pictures unique to plug-in protectors. What happens to all that energy if not diverted harmlessly in earth? bud says that energy magically disappears. Even Martzloff says objectionable difference in reference voltages occur when or perhaps because surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances.
And still bud incessantly posts his myths - insisting that protection effective. Why do high reliability facilities instead use earthing and 'whole house' protectors? They do what IEEE and NIST state. Surge energy must be dissipated somewhere. The best protector in the world can be useless if not earthed like a plug-in protector. Meanwhile bud still refuses to post even one plug-in protector spec - for good reason. Without earthing, that silly little ten cent part in plug-in protectors must stop and absorb what three miles of sky could not stop. No earth ground means no effective protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - where surge energy must be harmlessly diverted - as both IEEE and NIST state.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

The religious mantra that protects w from thinking.
Plus the usual lies (w is a fan of Josef Goebbels).
Plus the usual mischaracterization of what sources say about plug-in suppressors.
And as always - no one who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work. Why doesn't anyone agree with you w???
And no answers to 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"? - How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they drag an earthing chain?
And (with some overlap): 1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no. 2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground? 3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--


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

What any sales promoter would do? Lie. Insult. Even his own citations - the best he can come up with - show plug-in protector cause damage due to no earthing. Norma on 27 Dec 2008 in alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage" also describes the danger of power strip protectors:

bud called Norma a liar. And still no numeric spec that even says he protectors work.
Funny he should meantion Josef Goebbels. Only a Nazi bud would intentional harm others; recommend protectors on two wire circuits - a safety violation. And still he never once answers the OP's questions. His objective is to turn this discussion nasty so that you will not realize his scam.
Still cannot provide even one spec that says a plug-in protector does anything. Of course. It does not claim protection from a typically destuctive surge. It even spit sparks and smoke when the cable was temporarily disconnected. Or those 'scary pictures' - the fire threat is too common with plug-in protectors. But it does effectively create profits. Posting insults is bud's job - to keep you ignorant; to keep you buying their scam.
Of course, bud will reply. Sales promoter will constantly repost same half truths and lies. bud will do anything to get the last post. Profits are at risk.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

Poor w is still confused. The OP, as has been pointed out at least 4 times, asked about adding a ground to an outlet - which I answered (and w has not).

w will do anything to get the last post. His belief in earthing is at risk.
Except what w will not do is find someone who agrees with him that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
And w will not answer 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors? - Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"? - How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they drag an earthing chain?
And (with some overlap): 1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no. 2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground? 3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:21:30 -0700, Jonathan Sachs

Your main has a ground. There are other ways, but you need to know local codes.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% 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.