Replacing electrical wall outlets...

Page 2 of 2  
w_tom wrote:

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? Repeating: “They are ‘the easiest solution’.” and: "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, 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."
With no valid technical arguments w_ has to twist what the NIST says.

I recommend only accurate information. Read the guides and install what you want.

Repeating: “The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating of 75,000 A and 1475 Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.

"Undersizing" is a red herring. Suppressors with very high ratings are readily available.

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has are pathetic scare tactics.

What is the source of the article? Who said the surge suppressor was the cause? Why? Was it UL listed or cheap unlisted crap? Was it made before 1998?

Repeating: “Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.”
Lacking technical arguments w_ has to invent “each type of surge”. w_’s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does not list “each type of surge”.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.
Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage at TV2.
The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power service ‘ground’ is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.
As always, w_ has still not found another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.
w_ has never answered: - 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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? Can’t even answer simple questions w_???
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.
– bud--
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did Bud forget to mention a plug-in protector protects from one irrelevant type of surge? That is the point. His citation shows a plug-in protector earthing an 8000 volt surge destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. It had no dedicated earthing path. It cannot clamp to nothing. Where did that surge energy get dissipiated? No dedicated earthing; so it earthed (clamped) surge energy through an appliance. Bud calls that effective protection and previously said the homeowner should buy $3000 of protectors for everything.
Meanwhile, eliminate all plug-in protectors, install one 'whole house' protector from responsible manufacturers, and upgrade earthing to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements (did Bud also forget to mention that?) to have complete and effective protection.
Why do telcos in every town everywhere not use Bud's recommendation? Required is protection that works, does not waste money, and clamps (shunts, connects, diverts) surge energy into earth. Why does the US Air Force instruction manual demand only 'whole house' protectors?

Meanwhile where is any plug-in protector spec that lists each type of surge AND numbers for that protection? Why does Bud routinely fear that question maybe 400 times now? Plug-in protectors do not claim to protect from a type of surge that typically causes damage. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective.
Bud will post incessently so that your eyes glaze over. If he lie enoughm - confuse reality - then you will buy what is simple rather then what works. Profits are more important than honesty. Posting enough lies and half truth will get you to forget what is demanded by every professional organization from IEEE, to NIST, to every telco, to every commercial broadcaster, to every electric company, to military facilities ... They all demand protectors with better earthing. They don't use what Bud recommends.
Bud even avoids all discussion of earthing because his protector does not have that dedicated earthing connection. Plug-in protector does not provide the comprehensive protection provided by one properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Properly earthed 'whole house' protector is a simpler, less expensive, and real world solution. It eliminates the need for grossly overpriced and 'scary picture' plug-in protectors.
A protector without earthing does not provide protection. Why does he avoid that reality? Where does surge energy get diverted if not into earth? Page 42 Figure 8. Surge was diverted 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Energy not dissipated in earth must be dissipated where? Bud will not even provide a manufacturer specs. Why? Even his manufacturer will not make such claims in writing. Instead they have Bud.
Bud begins his post with spin (lying by telling half truths). That telco installed 'whole house' protector on your phone line did not provide protection for two wire appliances because ALL incoming utilities must have such protection. Bud forgets to mention that part. Damage still happened because another 'whole house' protector was not installed on AC mains. Bud 'forgets' why two wire appliance are damaged. What happens when AC electric, telephone, cable, and satellite dish are all properly earthed? All one wire, two wire, three wire and 100 wire appliances are protected. Your telco uses 'whole house' protectors so that a 100,000 wire appliance is protected - and without any plug-in protectors. Bud is accused of posting another half truth just to confuse you. Honesty is not Bud which is why he will post incessently.
Where does the US Army recommend plug-in protectors? Not. US Army needs reliable protection. Protectors that 'clamp to nothing' (as Bud claims), instead, clamp 8000 volts destructively through adjacent electronics such as Page 42 Figure 8.
Why does Bud also ignore those 'scary pictures'? He lied. UL1449 was created in the late 1980s - and Bud knows that. 'Scary pictures' are protectors built long after 1987 - and still did what in Boston on 28 Sept? Being honest is not Bud. Honesty means profits are at risk. Bud will say anything to avoid reality of those 'scary pictures'; to not post manufacturer specs; to forget why earthing is so important; and why 'clamping to nothing' only mocks the reader's intelligence. Why do high reliabilty facilties not use what Bud recommends?

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

The same drivel from a religious fanatic. I provide reputable sources - guides from the IEEE and NIST. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
w_ can’t even find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you get are his opinions based on a religious belief in earthing.
w_ can’t 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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
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.
–- bud--
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hi,
I thought that a lightning rod system *would* conduct a lighting bolt to ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod. I had a system installed on my house by these guys and the cables looked sort of chunky in size. http://www.alrci.com/faq.php .
Warmest regards, Mike.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a common misconception, based on the average 30,000 amp estimate of a lightning strike and trying to figure wire size.
But it's not a steady state current. It's a sharply dampled sinusoid, and #10 wire is more than adequate for any expected strike. Here in Europe everybody uses 3/8 inch solid rod (or metric equivalent) but it is no more protective.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

TimR has accurately defined why so little wire can conduct such massive surges. Electrical Engineering Times has two articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" at: http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807127 http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807830
This discussion is based in engineering principles and with numbers. Notice how much current is carried by an 18 gauge wire? If I remember, 61,000 amps. Wires used for AC power would have maybe four times that capacity.
BTW, also notice everything defined for surge protection. Notice the article never discusses plug-in protectors or a UPS. This professional engineering trade rag is not selling hype and myth. Both articles discuss the only thing required for surge protection - earthing and connections to earthing.
What is a protector? A connecting device to earth ground. It must *divert* a surge to earth. But earth ground defines that protection. This engineer author discusses wire size to conduct lightning to earth, how wires must be routed, why that connection must be so short, AND of course the most important part of surge protection - the earth ground electrode. Protection of electronics is defined by the most critical component in any surge protection system - earth ground. This engineering article on lightning protection discusses what most important component? Earthing.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

TimR has accurately defined why so little wire can conduct such massive surges. Electrical Engineering Times has two articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" at: http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807127 http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807830
This discussion is based in engineering principles and with numbers. Notice how much current is carried by an 18 gauge wire? If I remember, 61,000 amps. Wires used for AC power would have maybe four times that capacity.
BTW, also notice everything defined for surge protection. Notice the article never discusses plug-in protectors or a UPS. This professional engineering trade rag is not selling hype and myth. Both articles discuss the only thing required for surge protection - earthing and connections to earthing.
What is a protector? A connecting device to earth ground. It must *divert* a surge to earth. But earth ground defines that protection. This engineer author discusses wire size to conduct lightning to earth, how wires must be routed, why that connection must be so short, AND of course the most important part of surge protection - the earth ground electrode. Protection of electronics is defined by the most critical component in any surge protection system - earth ground. This engineering article on lightning protection discusses what most important component? Earthing.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am in SW Florida where we have flash/bang ligntning all the time (hit so close the flash and bang are together). I never unboplug anything.The only thing I have ever lost was my weather station and it "almost" worked. (RF was fine, wired connection failed) The lightning hit the air terminal on the post the wind speed indicator was on. I have PCs networked all over the house and one in the garage. The trick is good lightning protection and a good grounding system that everything connects to. You need protectors on everything coming in (Power, Phone and Cable). I also have point of use protection. The hole in my system was that wire from the wind sensor but the damage was still isolated to that one box. The PC it plugged into was fine. I now have that on a protector too.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It sure does sound like the OP is pulling the cord and not the plug.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Terry wrote:

LOL... creeping senility is a problem, but that's one thing I haven't done. The prong of the left side of 2 plugs now, have been left in the wall outlet... pulling on the plug normally. bj
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
chicagofan wrote:

A whole-house surge protector is indicated. About $50.
It attaches to the distribution system at the circuit-breaker box.
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.