Intermatic Whole House Surge Protector ?

While MOVs are good with very short duration surges, dropping a primary wire onto secondaries will rapidly destroy a MOV as you describe. Then protection is gone.

UL requires thermal disconnects for failing MOVs. The specs from trader4 include ?200k AIC Surge Rated Fuses? which indicate that suppressor can be used on in a panel with an available fault current (not surge related) of 200,000A. The suppressor may also trip a circuit breaker, but protection should be internal.

I believe the maximum likely surge current on one of the hot service wires is 10,000A based on a very strong 100,000A surge hitting the high voltage wire on the pole behind your house. The spec from trader4 is

40,000A per wire for that suppressor, which is well beyond what is likely.

MOVs also have an energy (Joule) rating, which is cumulative. The

40,000A rating goes with a very high Joule rating, which means the suppressor can take many hits. If a MOV had a 1000J rating, it is for a single surge. If the individual hits were much smaller, like 100J, the cumulative rating is much higher than 1000J. When the energy rating is exceeded, the MOV starts to conduct at lower voltages, eventually conducting at ?normal? voltages and failing in thermal runaway.

Without a service panel suppressor, there will be arc over to panel ground at about 6,000V. After it is established, the arc voltage will be hundreds of volts. That dumps most of the surge energy to earth. For plug-in suppressors, the impedance of the branch circuit wiring greatly limits the current, and thus the energy, that can reach the suppressor. Combined with arc over, the energy that can reach a plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small (unless the branch circuit is very short).

Reply to
bud--
Loading thread data ...

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."

Zener diodes and gas discharge tubes don't have the energy dissipation capacity of MOVs in a small volume. MOVs dissipate the energy throughout the volume of the device, where a zener diode dissipates the energy at a 'junction'. Other devices with high capacity are arc gaps and silicon carbide devices (another form of MOV). I don't see a practical component solution in your list.

You have not said why MOVs are a POS.

You could certainly use a motor/alternator. Depending on how much you are protecting it might only cost a few thousand dollars. Or a full-time conversion UPS for your house? (But what protects the UPS?) Or maybe a ferroresonant transformer? You could use it to help heat the house.

Or maybe a full-time off-grid generator? And get rid of the troublesome phone and cable lines?

Reply to
bud--

If the MOV got that 'hot' as to open a thermal fuse, it was grossly undersized =96 operating in complete violation of its manufacturer. Grossly undersizing is common with plug-in protectors since profit margins are more important than effective protection. MOVs much shunt (clamp, divert, connect) surges to earth AND remain *functional*. Those promoting plug-in protectors forget to mention that a protector must not fail by blowing the thermal fuse.

Any MOV that gets so hot as to trip a thermal fuse was violating MOV manufacturer specs and providing no effective protection. The only acceptable MOV failure means no excessive heat - no MOV vaporization. But such failures get the naive to recommend more protectors - increase sales. Again, which is more important =96 profits or protection?

Scary pictures demonstrate problem with grossly undersized protectors that still have UL 1449 approval. Not only do we instead install one properly sized 'whole house' protector. We also do not want protectors located on a rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop papers. The scary pictures demonstrate a 'too common' problem with plug-in protectors that Bud promotes for:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
w_tom

In w_?s mind, plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and service panel suppressors have mega ratings. But plug-in suppressors are readily available with very high ratings for relatively low cost. And branch circuit impedance greatly limits the current, and thus energy that gets to a plug-in suppressor.

None of w_?s links say any damaged suppressor even had a UL label.

Lacking technical arguments about plug-in suppressors, w_ tries to discredit people who expose his drivel. All I promote is accurate information.

Lacking valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

His hanford link is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. The hanford failure was in 1999 - a one year old suppressor? 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.

For accurate information on plug-in suppressors read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Reply to
bud--

w_tom is not promoting for a plug-in manufacturer. Bud is. 'Scary pictures' are a problem with plug-in protectors designed to maximize profits and that do not even claim to provide protection. Protectors located on flammable materials such as a rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop papers:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
or
formatting link
Bud is repeatedly asked for plug-in manufacturer specs that list each type of surge and protection from that surge. Manufacturer=92s specs don't even list protection from any type of surge. So Bud pretends the request does not exist.

Bud cannot provide numbers that plug-in manufacturers will not provide. Bud must deny this problem with plug-in protectors. Bud will even belittle others. And still Bud will not provide a single manufacturer spec that claims protection. But will not even admit who he is promoting for. Protectors that do not even claim to provide protection - but are so profitable.

Take a $3 power strip. Add some ten cent parts. Sell it for $25 or $150. That profit margin explains why plug-in protectors are promoted. Even manufacturer specs do not claim to provide protection. No wonder Bud will never provide those spec numbers. Honesty might endanger profits.

Reply to
w_tom

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association with surge protectors is I have some.

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ lies.

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ repeats the 'scary' lie. w_ has no source that says UL listed plug?in suppressors produced after 1998 are a fire hazard.

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ invents issues. "Each type of surge" is nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.

w_ favored SquareD service panel suppressors do not list "each type of surge".

w_ has never explained how "common mode" surges get past the N?G bond required in US services.

The last plug-in suppressor I bought (about $25) had 1 MOV that was

1475J, 75,000A and 2 that were 590J 30,000A. w_ will likely ignore this and continue to ask for specs, as usual.
3rd repetition of the lie. Too bad w_ doesn't have technical arguments.

Provide a source for a 1475J 75,000A MOV for ten cents.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

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"?

?- bud--

Reply to
bud--

A plug-in protector uses maybe 1/3rd and never more than 2/3rds of it joules in protection. When a plug-in protector has other connections (ie telephone, cable, ethernet), those numbers decrease. Meanwhile, 'whole house' protectors from responsible companies (GE, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Keison, etc) use ALL joules for protection. Using all joules means the same sized 'whole house' protector may last eight times longer and can divert even more surge into earth. Did Bud forget to mention that? Profit would be at risk.

Bud still provides not one plug-in manufacturer spec that actually claims protection. Protection numbers cannot be quoted when no - not one - plug-in protector manufacturers claims that protection. Oh. $25 for one plug-in protector ... that does not even claim to provide protection? One whole house' protector costs about $1 per protected appliance. That 'whole house' protector also does not earth surges destructively 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent appliance - Page 42 Figure 8 from Bud's citation.

A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is the point quoted in every Bud citation:

How does that protector without a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth "divert it to ground, where it can do no harm"? It cannot

*divert* to what it does not connect to. Same point demonstrated in two front page articles in Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". Where do they discuss plug-in protectors? They don't. The article is about effective surge protection. It discusses earth ground and connections to earth ground; what provides protection.

A homeowner upgrades building earthing to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC code, and installs a 'whole house' protector from responsible companies. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why effective protectors have that short and dedicated wire to earth ground.

How to identify the ineffective protector: 1) No dedicated earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection which is why some will even 'forget' how few joules actually get used in protection.

Reply to
w_tom

Poor w_ can invent the stupidest arguments. 75,000A, the MOV that takes most of the hit, is far larger than needed in a service panel suppressor. There is no possibility of getting that current on a branch circuit. The high value just goes with the high energy ratings.

Investigation by the author of the NIST guide with surges up to 10,000A on a branch circuit with a MOV at the end found in 13 of 15 cases the amount of energy absorbed by the MOV was less than 1.2J. The maximum was

35J. Arc-over at the panel and impedance of the branch circuit simply limit the current, and thus energy, that can reach a plug-in suppressor. The ratings in my suppressor are far over what it will see making the likelihood of ever failing essentially zero.

What an idiot.

Counting light bulbs and switches as "appliances".

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. Poor w_?s religious blinders prevent him from reading in the IEEE guide that plug?in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Still missing - link another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still missing ? 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"?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

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

Reply to
bud--

I think both have their uses and as per the IEEE, can complement each other. For example, an issue Tom never addresses is that lots of people are living in an apartment or rented home and they can't install a whole house protector at the panel. And even for those that do have a whole house protector, having secondary protection at the point of use only adds to the protection. Curiously, one of his arguments is that manufacturers of electonic eqpt all include surge protection in the electronic eqpt, so it's already built-in and apparently Tom is OK with that. Yet, the protection used inside electronics like a TV set has no earth ground nearby, without which, according to Tom, surge protection is impossible. In fact, at the appliance, it's even an addional cord length of 6 ft away from earth ground as compared to where a plug-in suppresor would be. So, then how could protection inside the electronics possibly work?

I know one thing. If a surge does make it to the outlet, I'd rather have it next encounter the MOVs inside the $20 surge protector, instead of the ones in the $2000 TV.

Reply to
trader4

Review Page 42 Figure 8. A surge arrives on black (hot) wire. Plug- in protector shunts that surge onto white (neutral) and green (safety ground) wires. Now that surge has three paths to find earth ground,

8000 volts destructively, through that TV. Bud's citation that shows what a plug-in protector might do ALSO shows how that same ineffective protector can contribute to appliance damage.

w_tom has addressed this apartment problem repeatedly. A kludge. Cut the protector power cord as short as possible. Plug it into a receptacle attached to the breaker box. This locates the protector as far as possible from appliances and close to earth ground. No, this is not very good protection. But it is an improvement over the worst installation; a protector adjacent to the appliance.

Meanwhile, apartments in steel and concrete buildings already have best earthing. Breaker box is bonded to steel. Only needed is a 'whole house' protector - effective earthing already exists.

w_tom learned this stuff decades ago in this example. A house without a 'whole house' protector had networked computers; two computers on plug-in protectors. All computers powered off. Plug-in protectors created the damage as demonstrated three paragraphs up. Black wire surge was shunted (connected) to the green wire. Plug-in protector bypassed protection in both computers - put surges into each computer's motherboard and network card. Surge found earth ground via the network, a third computer and its modem. Without plug-in protectors, the surge would not have been shunted (diverted, clamped, bonded) into motherboard - would not have bypassed protection already inside those computers. Better protection would have been no plug-in protector. Or connecting protector to a receptacle at the breaker box

- as far as possible from computers to be closer to earth ground.

Using a plug-in protector without a properly earthed 'whole hosue' protector can result in adjacent appliance damage - as demonstrated by Bud in his citation Page 42 Figure 8. Plug-in protector can only supplement - cannot replace missing earth ground protection. Without the 'whole house' protector, in so many examples, the plug-in protector then created electronics damage.

Only wild speculation says a plug-in protector is better than nothing. A plug-in protector does not even claim to protect from typically destructive surges. Do not assume, as Bud hopes, that all surges are same. Had the plug-in protectors not exists, then all networked computers may not have been damaged.

We earth surge protectors for a type of surge that typically causes damage AND must be earthed. No way around what must provide protection even in apartments.

trader, unlike a sales promoter Bud, I have actually done this. We designed some of this stuff (in custom installations), and learned from mistakes. One mistake - I foolishly thought a plug-in protector was better than nothing. Then lightning taught us some lessons. No way around what provides protection from the typically destructive surge: earth ground. Even the manufacturer will not claim what Bud is posting. Above: plug-in protectors too close to the appliance even made damage possible. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective protection. In multiple examples, plug-in protector was worse than nothing. But good news: it will protect from a surge that typically does not create damage. That means complete protection.

Reply to
w_tom

Are you for real? Cut the cord short and plug it into a receptacle attached to the breaker box? What receptacle attached to what breaker box? Geez, I've lived in many apartments and the only outlets attached to the breaker box were the ones in the wall, which is where everyone, including the IEEE would place the protector. And like cutting the cord from 3 ft to what 1 ft is going to make a significant difference? LOL

Hmmm, couldn't be too many decades ago that a typical house had networked computers...

All computers powered off. Plug-in

How does an external surge protector "bypass" the internal protection? And how exactly is it that the same components inside a computer are going to deal with the surge any differently? Internally, the MOV's have the exact same deployment choices ie hot to neutral, hot to ground, etc that they do in an external surge protector. Unless you're gonna tell us that the TV comes with an earth ground inside it.

Better protection would have been no plug-in

Do you have any credible reference, or even any reference at all, other than your own claims of surge protectors causing damage of this type rather than helping prevent it? Funny the IEEE doesn't warn about it.

No, only wild speculation says it's worse. Reference please.

A plug-in protector does not even claim to protect from

Read the label and marking on the box it comes in.

Do not assume, as Bud hopes, that all

Of course in your jaundiced view, anything that's bad that happens is due to either plug-in surge protectors or human failure. If the cat died, it would be due to the surge protector too. I've had exactly the opposite experience, where electronics connected to plug-in surge protectors came through a lightning storm OK, while one device NOT using one was destroyed.

We do get a chuckle here listening to you rant about Bud and trying to discredit him by claiming he sells plug-in surge protectors. How long before you start accusing me too? Actually, I think you have, in the past.

Reply to
trader4

Are you insane? It is routine to have receptacles attached a breaker box. With simple technical grasp of facts, then a receptacle located only feet from the breaker box would be an alternative. Is that so difficult? Well yes if one ignores impedance. It's this difficult. Longer wire means high impedance which is why a six cord power cord is cut as short as possible. Two EE Times front page articles were provided so that trader could learn what is important - low impedance. Trader never read it. Instead trader complains because he cannot find an AC receptacle. Trader, please stop asking for help to find an AC receptacle. Ask your mom.

Cutting feet off that protector wire is significant for a kludge protection system. Even sharp wire bends diminish protection. Trader would know that from reading front page EE Times articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". Then trader=92s next post could be questions based in technology and tempered by numbers.

How does protection inside a computer get bypassed? Where does the black wire connect? Where does the green wire connect? Protection inside a computer is substantial where the black wire connects. A green wire surge finds an easy and direct connection - near zero protection - into motherboard electronics. Plug-in protector connects a black wire surge directly into the motherboard - completely bypassing computers best protection. Surge was shunted (connected) to green wire by the plug-in protector.

Page 42 Figure 8 also shows what may happen when an adjacent protector does not earth a surge. A surge was earthed 8000 volts destructively through the TV. Same failure created by a protector without earthing was traced through a network of powered off computer.

How curious. Where surge damage must never happen, plug-in protectors are not used. Effective surge protection is routinely earthed where wires enter the building and up to 50 meters distant from the computer. Let's see. Damage to electronics because the protector was too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. No damage when protector is attached to earth ground and up to 50 meters distant from electronics. What were you saying about 100 years of no damage when protectors are short to earth ground and separated from electronics? Oh. Trader is still having difficulty finding a wall receptacle near the breaker box. No time to learn the science in an article entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients"? Too much reality?

Wire impedance is so significant that manufacturers even consider impedance on one inch MOV wires leads. .

Many apartments have such good earthing that only a =91whole house=92 protector is required. Provided is how to kludge a protector in an apartment. It assumes one can find an AC receptacle closest to the breaker box.

Resp> Are you for real? Cut the cord short and plug it into a receptacle

Reply to
w_tom

No, but you certainly seem to be. A total nutjob if ever there was one. Anyone who follows you should make sure all of their affairs are in order and their life insurance is paid up so the kids, if they aren't killed too, can still go to college someday.

Reply to
salty

Thank you for a technical reply. Those who were so dumb as to also believe Saddam had WMDs would also prove their intelligence by posting insults. Less responsible companies such as APC and Monster Cable sell those scam plug-in protectors approved by salt@dog. Companies who must make equipment so that a house does not burn down provide 'whole house' protectors. Responsible companies such as Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Keison, Square D, Siemens, and GE. But salty@dog uses venom to know products from these companies will kill kids. As usual, those who insult must know; could not bother to even learn how electricity works.

Did you also read the warranty from those plug-in protectors? Chock full of fine print exemption after exemption. For example, if you have a protector from any other company, then the first company will not honor its warranty. What kind of warranty is that? Companies recommended by salty@dog even write warranties that can never be honored. They are preaching to people such as salty@dog who is expert because he can attack - and never posts even one technical number.

A majority believe plug-in myths for the same reason a majority also believed Saddam had WMDs. They were told. Therefore it must be true. If facts contradict their reality, then attack the messenger. salty@dog (and 'experts' like him) do this. Venom was also sufficient to prove Saddam had WMDs. Under the new rules of extremism, it must be true only because salty@dog says so.

Accurately described is what makes an Intermatic protector so effective. Without an earthed Intermatic, plug-in protectors can even contribute to adjacent appliance damage - Page 42 Figure 8. With the Intermatic and proper earthing, then surges that the plug-in protector might protect from are made irrelevant. Any protector without that short (low impedance) connection to earth ground is ineffective protection - and promoted by salty@dog venom. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground so that surge energy need not dissipate (destroy appliances) inside a building.

Reply to
w_tom

OK, now we have Tom's list of the "responsible" companies who know all about surge protection. Funny thing though, most of these responsible companies on the list actually sell plug in surge protectors as part of their product lines.

Intermatic sells plug-ins:

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

Metal Surge Strips Industrial Point of Use Protection IG11266BLK10

6 outlet metal plug strip surge protection with 10 foot cord and lighted on/off switch. 15 amp resettable breaker. Black metal housing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------=

Reply to
trader4

formatting link

formatting link

Nice list.

You can add Cuttler Hammer - they make plug-in suppressors.

And looking at another favorite of w_ - SquareD *service panel* suppressors:

For the 'best' suppressor - SDSB1175C

- The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

- The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device."

For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB

- The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video equipment, televisions, and computers."

Alas - all but one of w_'s "responsible companies" are actually irresponsible and "hype myths".

And what a surprise, w_ had no real response. I wonder why?

On the contrary, w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the corresponding lack of support for w_?s claim that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

Good news w_ - religious fanatics can be cured!!! Look in the yellow pages for "deprogrammers".

Reply to
bud--

Reply to
w_tom

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.