power conditioner or battery back-up?

Page 2 of 2  
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

So they went from myth to mostly a myth? So clare is right?
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at: <http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf - "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US). And also: <http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf> - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2001
The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
And I agree with the comments by trader4.

w believes that plug-in suppressors do not work. But both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The same protection is commonly included in UPSs. Any surge suppressor in the US should be listed under UL1449.
All interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor. External connections, like phone and cable, also need to go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport suppressors are described in both guides.
Motors are, in general, the least vulnerable to surges. The NIST guide cites US insurance information that indicates equipment most likely to be damaged by lightning is computers with modem connection and TV related equipment - presumably with cable connection. All can be damaged by high voltage between signal and power wires.

w's favored service panel suppressor is a good idea. But 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.
IMHO a power conditioner is seldom useful.
--
bud--

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

Bud
The whole house surge protectors that I install protects all wire born utilities that enter the home including the power, coaxial cable, and twisted pair types of conductors. My experience with them has been very positive. I have one customer who had a tree struck by lightning in his back yard over one year after his whole house protector install. Both neighbors suffered appliance and electronic damage. All he lost was the GFCI on his garden pool circuit. That item being only twenty feet from the tree that was struck I think the whole house surge protector did a pretty good job. None of his unit protectors were destroyed but I urged their replacement anyway. I did have to replace the power module of the protector as it was in failure alarm after the event but the seventy dollars was far less then the cost to either of his neighbors. I had installed a Rural Electrification Administration (REA) style Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC) that was split bolted to the neutral on the customer side of the Service Drop / Service Entry Conductor splice. The inspector said he hadn't seen one like it in decades. That particular GEC was the one to the driven rod supplemental electrodes. The main GEC was run to the water service entry which is a copper pipe connected directly to a very large water utility underground piping network. Having been badly hit by the failure of early plastic pipe offerings the local utility does not permit any plastic piping in it's multi-county water main network.
My point is that an all wire utility type of whole house protector can do a good job of protecting from voltage differences between the various signal and power lines if it is conscientiously installed.
-- Tom Horne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Horne wrote:

>>

One element of surge protection is having a short ground wire connecting phone and cable entry protectors and the "ground" at the power service. The service protector you install very effectively does that by combining all the protection in one unit. (The cable and phone distribution then has to be from the load terminals of the protector.)
There are some possibilities that those service units can not cover, like a real close strike (back yard tree) can produce a surge voltage with building wiring acting as an antenna (for instance cable and power wires acting as a loop antenna which is connected to a TV).
Another, which is in the IEEE guide, is with a very near strike a pad mounted A/C compressor-condenser may be at a very different voltage than that the building wiring. Same for submersible pumps (though they are likely to contain surge protection). And could easily be true for the garden GFCI,

IMHO for surge protection the N-G bond point ("main bonding jumper") is best located at the service panel where branch circuit neutrals and grounds terminate. The grounding electrodes would then be connected at that point.
I assume your water pipe is connected to that point. I didn't dig out the code, but I believe all electrodes, particularly a required supplemental electrode, have to connect to the same point. But I wouldn't argue with connecting a rod at the utility service connection point.
[Gee - 'no one' told you not to use a water pipe as an earthing electrode.]

I agree. A surge may float the wiring in a building far above "absolute" ground A lot of the protection is actually that all the wiring floats together.
--------- Nice to see you around.
--
bud--



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

Put numbers to a surge induced by lightning maybe 50 feet away.
In another example, a one hundred foot dipole antenna was less than 30 feet from a nearby strike. Voltage on that disconnected antenna lead was thousands of volts. Voltage induced by electromagnetic fields. Then we put an NE-2 neon glow lamp on that antenna lead. Milliamps of surge current caused voltage to drop to tens of volts. Current created by a nearby strike was so trivial as to not even harm the NE-2 neon lamp.
Any surge created by fields from a nearby strike is made irrelevant by a 'whole house' protector, by protection already inside every appliance, and even by incandescent bulbs.
In another case, lightning struck a lightning rod. The entire lightning bolt traveled to earth only four feet away from a PC that was just inside the wall. What did those massive fields from a direct lightning strike do? Those fields were so destructive as to not even cause the computer to blink. No crash. No damage. No massive surge induced by a lightning bolt only four feet away.
If lightning creates fields with massive surge energy, then a nearby strike would destroy every nearby car radio and cell phone. Why no damage? Even transistors connected to something optimized to collect field energy (an antenna) results in no transistor damage. Protection inside electronics is that simple and robust. Those fields do not create the massive surges promoted in myths.
Some facilities will take care to interconnect equipment so that a data error on low power data cables does not occur. But fields inducing a hardware destructive surge are a popular urban myth.
A greater threat is a surge being earthed by the ground wire. That wire must not be bundled (inches away) with other wires so that surges are not induced on (do not jump into) those other wires. Proper protector earthing means its ground wire is separated from other wires
Ground wire inside romex would also induce surges on other wires - too close. Just another reason why safety ground wires do not properly earth surge currents.
Earthing wires are best routed separate from all other wires. Destructive surges created fields from a nearby struck tree are only popular myths.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

A service panel suppressor, of course, does nothing to limit the voltage between power and signal wires. w_ doesn't explain how incandescent bulbs help.
The author of the NIST guide is an expert in the field of surges and protection. In the NIST guide he says (guide page 14): "Intruder alarm systems using wires between sensors and their central control unit can be disturbed - and damaged in severe cases - by lightning striking close to the house. The wires necessary for this type of installation extend to all points of the house and act as an antenna system that collects energy from the field generated by the lightning strike, and protection should be included in the design of the system, rather than added later by the owner." And more generally (guide page 13): "the antenna for a remote garage door opener, the sensor wiring for an intrusion alarm system, the video signal part of a satellite dish receiver. Surges in these systems are caused by nearby lightning strikes."
But apparently w_ is smarter.
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still never answered - simple questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

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

Bud claims electromagnetic fields create massive voltages on interior signal wires. Meanwhile, signal wires connect to semiconductors that can withstand 2000 or 15,000 volts without damage. Those numbers are routine and are now an international standard. Electronics already contains robust protection that makes those fields even less problematic.
If Bud's products did anything useful, then Bud repeatedly posted those numeric protection specs. He refuses. No power strip protector makes any protection claim. So now Bud is promoting another myth - surges created by electromagnetic fields.
Earth one 'whole house' protector so that even direct lightning strikes cause no household damage. Connect even the telco provided for free 'whole house' protectors to the same earthing. Earth provides the protection which is why one 'whole house' protector is so effective.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Ooh - massive voltages... As usual, w_'s opinions are contradicted by the NIST surge guru who wrote the NIST guide - ignoring the quotes I provided.
As usual - no source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
As usual - 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?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

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

Bud is lying again. That NIST guru said in the very first conclusion of his IEEE paper:

Plug-in (point of connection) protectors can even create appliance damage as the IEEE guide shows on Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000 volt damage to the adjacent TV. Even Bud admits a power strip does not claim surge protection. See manufacturer numeric specs he refuses to provide. Sales promoters are hired to spin myths; to maintain the scam.
Where are electromagnetic fields creating destructive surges? Another Bud myth necessary to promote the scam.
Tom Horne demonstrated what engineers have seen for generations. Tom Horne demonstrates why earthing and a 'whole house' protector has been the effective solution for over 100 years. Protection is not Bud's magic strip that stops and absorbs what three miles of sky could not. Protection is about earthing surges outside a building - one 'whole house' protector so that "objectionable differences" do not exist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
>>

The village idiot forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994 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]."
And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in suppressors are effective.

If the village idiot could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE says in this 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.

The village idiot is hallucinating again/still.

I provided quotes from the NIST guide that contradict poor w_.

The village idiot has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must directly use earthing. w_ believes plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING (limiting) the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work by stopping or absorbing or magic. And they do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that agrees with him that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have are w_'s rants based on his religious belief in earthing.
And, as always, 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? - 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]"? - 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"?
--
bud--


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

I'll save you a lot of typing, Bud: Anyone who listens to W_tom, and follows his advice is a leading candidate for the annual Darwin awards. A word to the wise is sufficient.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1. Battery backups (uninterruptible power supplies) are worth the money for computers because conventional shutdown (even if the power goes off) averts hard drive damage, puts off any need to repair or reinstall operating systems. They are also convenient for satellite TV systems, HDTVs etc. (not least because they include surge protectors.)
2. Only large and expensive UPSs could keep refrigerators or microwave ovens going. In the country, if you need electricity to keep your furnace going, you need a generator, not a UPS. It is hardly worth it for a fridge or cooker.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why do you need a battery backup for an HDTV? All you need is surge protection, which is best applied at the panel for whole house protection, followed by point-of use protection for items like the HDTV.
As far as PC shutdowns, a UPS is certainly needed for mission critical applications, where you either need to keep the system running or at least be able to save the current application data that has not yet been saved. But for routine home use, I don't see them as necessary. For 25 years, I've had a variety of PCs that were on all the time. They went through plenty of power losses and I never had a hardware failure or a corrupted disk because of it. Running XP now, it's rare following power loss that it even needs to scan the disk.
And even if that disk were to get corrupted, it should be restorable from a backup if you are doing things right. Good backup practice is more critical than a UPS, because it protects not only from possible disk corruption by power issues, but also from what is far more likely in my experience, which is virus problems or actual drive hardware failure for any reason.

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.