Surge Protector for Friederich 24k btu Wall A/C Unit - Is it okay to use?

Page 1 of 2  
I have a Friederich 10k and 24k A/C but wall unit air conditioners. These are only a few years old, but are not the newer models where the plugs now come with the built in surge protector. I live in the North East and like many other places is susceptible to many surges and brownouts so I would also like the added protection of the surge protectors of the newer units. My question is it is okay to use a good off the shelf single outlet surge protector on these large units and if so, is it worth it or do they really not do anything. Below is a link to the one I was considering from Radio Shack. Regards and thanks to all for your help. http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId $54736&cp=&sr=1&origkw=surge+protector&kw=surge+protector&parentPage=search
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you refering to the GFI protector that is now on all plug-in air conditioners? I've never heard of an A/C unit with built-in surge protection. All it really needs is a good ground path.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId $54736&cp=&sr=1&origkw=surge+protector&kw=surge+protector&parentPage=search
Surge protections is mostly for electronics, circuit boards and the like. The 24k AC is probably 240V and I don't know of any off the shelf units that would work with it. Be sure it has the amp rating that is the same or greater than the receptacle you are plugging into. I've run room ACs for the past 40 years and never had a surge problem, doubt you would too.
FWIW, the plugs I'm aware of are ground fault, not surge protection.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What are you trying to protect from? A surge protector does zero for brownouts - despite others who recommend surge protectors for brownouts.
Did you notice how that protector is wire? Connects the air conditioner to the adjacent receptacle - and the protection circuit does not change. Air conditioner connects directly to AC mains either way - even through that protector. So what is that protector doing?
Any protection that might work on its power cord is already inside the air conditioner. The plug-in device adds nothing. But it uses the words 'surge' and 'protector'; therefore it must do something? You are being sold on science based in 'word association'.
Do you believe that protector stops what three miles of sky could not? It must to stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors don't stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors shunt (divert, connect, clamp) surges to earth. An earthed surge will not enter a building to find your air conditioner. That earthing connection must be short (ie. 'less than 10 feet').
If your air conditioner needs a protector, then critical items need a protection more desperately. GFCIs in the kitchen. Each smoke detector. Your furnace. GFCIs in each bathroom. Alarm system. Other items equally as critical to an air conditioner include dishwasher, microwave, clock radios, washer, expensive electric tools, dimmer switches, dryer, each ceiling fan, electronically controlled iron, ... You need maybe $2000 in plug-in protectors. Since that protector does not have the dedicated earth ground connection, it also does not even claim to provide protection from each type of surge. Did they forget to mention each type of surge? Why?
If an air conditioner needs surge protection, then you need a surge protector that actually provides protection from all types of surges AND has a dedicated connection to earth. A surge that does not enter the building will not overwhelm existing protection inside all those appliances. An effective protector is sold by responsible companies such as Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, GE, and others. Radio Shack is not on that list. Radio Shack solution has not dedicated earthing wire; does not even discuss earth ground. Show me where Radio Shack lists each type of surge and numbers for the protection? It does not. So what is it protecting?
Take that $2 plug assembly. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $18? With a price markup that high, then why mention it only protects from a type of surge that does not typically cause damage. Profits are too high to be honest.
If that air conditioner needs protection, then so does everything else. Effective protector with the dedicated earthing wire means protection even for much more important smoke detectors at about $1 per appliance - 18 times less money. When do you most need those smoke detectors? During the rare and destructive surge.
Responsible engineering sources cite earthing as essential for surge protection. So protection 'system' don't even have a surge protector (ie cable TV) but all must have the earth ground connection. Same thing makes Ben Franklin's lightning rods effective. Earth ground. Protector only connects surges to earth. Earth is where all that energy is dissipated without harm. No earth ground? No effective protection. Your household earthing must be upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC requirements if surges are to not enter a building.
Get your earthing upgrades because earthing provides the protection. Then install one 'whole house' protector to make that 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection. Spend less money. Have protection from the type of surge that actually harms appliances. A surge that does not enter the building will not overwhelm protection that is already inside all appliances.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank you all for your help. This was certainly an education for me. Yes, I looked and you are all right that it is a built-in GFI protector, not a surge protector. The only reason I asked is because the retailer I bought these from said to get one when I went back and said I had the old style plugs. Apparently this was not good advice and I'm glad I checked here first. Again, many thanks to you all. Regards.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By the way, since we're on the topic, what does the built-in GFI protector do? Should I have the outlets changed to one with GFI protection, but they are single dedicted line outlets. Is it really that important. Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A GFCI cuts off the current when it detects a small difference in current between the hot and neutral on the loads it is protecting. The currents should be equal. If they are not, it indicates there is some other path the current is taking, ie to ground through a fault. It does this so fast and with such a small current, that it protects YOU from being that ground fault path. For example, if you took a wet hair dryier in one hand and grabbed a faucet with another, a regular circuit breaker would not do anyting until the total current exceeded the limit of that breaker, eg 15, 20 amps etc. You'd be dead by then. The GFCI opens very fast with only a few milliamps of current flowing to ground, thereby preventing you from getting electrocuted. That' why they are required in baths, kitchens, outside, etc.
I wouldn't worry about one for an air conditioner. Just make sure it has a proper ground. You can buy a simple plug in outlet tester that will tell you if the outlet is wired properly, has a ground, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's probably true that A/Cs are a little more likely to have certain kinds of ground faults (eg: as a result of condensation) than many other devices. Given their size and that they're mostly metal, the likelyhood of experiencing a shock if a fault occurs will be higher than with most other things.
Similarly with refrigerators - it's not at all unusual for old fridges to have ground faults. However, they're less likely to put GFCI on fridges, because the consequences of a false trip are rather worse than with an A/C.
If the OP does plan on GFCI'ing the A/Cs, he has several options:
- GFCI breaker - GFCI outlet - GFCI "cord".
The latter two are really only applicable to plug-in 120V A/Cs. A 120V GFCI outlet is < $10. A GFCI "cord" is typically about $25, and doesn't require changing any permanent wiring (no "installation"). It's just a short extension cord with a GFCI in it.
If you do go with the "GFCI cord" approach, make sure that the wire itself is at least 14ga or 12ga (depending on whether the AC is < 12A or < 16A).
A GFCI breaker could set you back anywhere from about $20 to $200 (_not_ including installation), depending on the panel, the amperage and whether it's 120V or 240V. 240V GFCI breakers can sometimes be hideously expensive.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Details are posted by trader4. To summarize what he has posted: GFCI is for human protection; not for air conditioner protection.
Next month means live Christmas trees. From another's personal experience, if a Christmas tree catches fire, you have 5 minutes to empty the house. In that Christmas tree fire, humans barely escaped; all pets were killed.
Another electrical protection device is called an AGFI. This is a GFI now required for all bedrooms. It detects electric arcing; cuts off power before a fire can occur. In that example, the wife saw sparks ignite the tree when she powered on its lights. That arcing would have been quashed by an AGFI. IOW the circuit that powers a live Christmas tree should have an Arc Fault Detecting Ground Fault Interrupter. A newer type of GFCI that also quashes electrical arcs. Available in any electrical supply or hardware store. Unfortunately I have never found a plug-in version - and don't know why. Even GFCIs are found on some extension cords - especially those used by plumbers.
AGFIs are required on all bedroom circuits after 2002. But experience demonstrates why an AGFI is strongly recommended for the circuit that powers a Christmas tree. Again, its purpose is to protect humans.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

It is AFCI - arc-fault circuit interrupter. They are much more sophisticated than a GFCI, They detect *only* parallel arcs, like line to neutral. They do not detect series arcs, like a loose connection. (Combination AFCIs that detect series arcs are required after 11-08 but they probably dont exist now and may well not exist then.)

Provide a link with information for this mythical device.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at: http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf And one from the NIST at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

Complete nonsense.

Geez - it even fooled the IEEE and NIST. Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

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).
Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the suppressor. External connections, like phone, 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.
Ratings range from junk to very high.

As others have said, an air conditioner is not particularly vulnerable.
According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment most frequently damaged by lightning is computers with a modem connection TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV connections). All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

More complete nonsense.
Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.

Because it is w_s list.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING, not earthing.

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

Surge suppressors at the service are a good idea. What does the NIST guide say? "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."
The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. 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. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.
- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was my first thought too. But, I've seen newer AC's that have electronics in them for digital temp control, remote control, etc. Those could certainly be as susceptable as any other electronic eqpt.
I agree with the rest of your analysis regarding surge protectors. Having whole house protection at the panel is a very good idea and offers some key advantages, but it doesn't mean that plug-in surge protectors don't work or are useless. One of my favorites from w_tom is that all the appliances already have surge protection inside. So, which would MOV would you rather have take that big spike and possible get blown out? A $15 surge protector or a $2000 TV?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 11, 7:49 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Why let propaganda distort your thinking? If the MOV is blown out, then it provided no protection. Nada. Effective protectors MUST earth a surge and remain functional. Why does a plug-in protector fail during a surge? Why is it so grossly undersized? That failure promotes more sales. A surge way too small to overwhelm protection inside that $2000 TV or dishwasher, instead, destroyed the grossly undersized plug-in protector? What kind of protection is that? Ineffective and so expensive. But the protector enriches the manufacturer.
Plug-in protectors will even earth surges destructively through adjacent appliances. Review Bud's citations. A protector must earth a surge - not absorb it. How does a plug-in protector earth without a 'less than 10 foot' dedicated earthing wire? It does not. But then it does not even claim such protection in its own numeric specs. Its purpose is profits; not protection.
Learn why plug-in protectors may even earth surges destructively through appliances. The surge must be earthed somewhere. Page 42 Figure 8 in http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
A plug-in protector too close to an appliance has earthed a surge *8000 volts destructively* through an adjacent TV. Where is the protection? That protector - earthing a surge through the TV - has done what its manufacture claims. It does not claim to protect from the type of surge that typically causes damage. By being grossly undersized (ineffective), you have assumed a blown out protector provided protection? A blown out protector even violates every MOV manufacturer spec. Acceptable MOV failure means never vaporizing. But vaporizing gets the naive to promote more profits - recommend those grossly undersized protectors.
A 'blown out' MOV is even a safety hazard - completely unacceptable.
Do you really believe it will absorb the energy from three miles of lightning? They need you to 'feel' that one inch part stops or absorbs what three miles of sky could not stop. Show me a single MOV designed to do that - and good luck. Bud needs you to 'feel' it protects by absorbing the entire surge - sacrificing itself. If you learn the science, then profits are at risk. No effective protector does that stopping or absorbing. But when a plug-in protector is undersized, scary pictures may result: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 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 or http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FIRES.doc http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
MOVs are no longer inside appliances because MOVs adjacent to the appliance (on power cord or inside) are not effective. All appliances have long contained internal protection - and no MOVs. MOVs must be AT earth ground. Bud's citation even defines the effective protector. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

Where does it say anything about absorbing energy to be 'blown out'? It does not. It *diverts* - and it remains functional. Blown out is how to promote more sales of protectors that don't even claim to provide protection.
Divert it to where? Where is surge energy dissipated? Earth ground. With a 6 foot power cord on a plug-in protector, how will it make a 'less than 10 foot' connection? Wire length (not diameter) mostly determines wire impedance. The effective surge protector must have a low impedance connection to earth. That means 'less than 10 feet'. A plug-in protector too far from earth ground is for profits; not protection. Does not even claim to provide protection. View it yourself. Its numeric specs do not even list or claim to protection from the typically destructive type of surge. Bud will never post that number because the number does not exist. A $15 plug-in protector (or same one sold in Circuit City or Radio Shack for $150) does not even claim to provide that protection.
But its called a protector. Therefore it must be protection? Junk science reasoning. Even its own specs do not claim to protect from the typically destructive surge.
You would spend 15 times more money ($15) and still not protect that $2000 TV?
A grossly undersized protector's MOV may vaporize so you will believe myths. See those scary pictures that demonstrate plug-in protectors. Bud hopes you ignore those scary pictures including a latest fire in Boston or the NC Fire Marshall's report on why plug-in protector create fires. Effective MOVs make a short ('less than 10 foot') connection to earth ground AND is best located far from appliances. That effective solution is the 'whole house' protector - costing tens of times less money. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Why does your telephone CO not shutdown during every thunderstorm? It connects to overhead wires everywhere in town. According to Bell System Tech Journal papers, the CO may suffer about 100 surges during every thunderstorm. Why does their telephone switching computer suffer no damage? One 'whole house' protector is located where each wire enters the building, where the protector connects directly to earth ground, AND up to 50 meters separation from electronics. *Separation* between electronics and protector is important for protection. Oh. They don't waste money on plug-in protectors? They don't want protectors that can even contribute to electronics damage or create scary pictures. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Effective protector is at earth ground AND is separated from the $2000 TV.
You actually believe a 'blown out' MOV provides protection? A 'blown out' MOV even violates manufacturer specs. But a 'blown out' MOV gets the nave to promote more sales. Telcos don't waste tens of times more money for ineffective protection. Why would you? Why would you use a protector that may earth surges destructively through your $2000 TV?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No need to worry, I'm not letting your propaganda distort my thinking.
If the MOV is blown out,

Following that logic, a blown fuse offers no protection either. It's certainly possible for a MOV inside a plug-in surge protector to have taken the biggest part of the surge, blowing it out, and the protection inside the electronic appliance, acting in parallel, to have also taken some of the surge, but not be destroyed.
Why does a plug-in protector

LOL. Let me get this straight. According to you, the minimal protection inside electronic eqpt or an appliance is supposed to be perfectly capable of stopping a surge, yet components capable of disipating a similar or larger surge in a plug-in protector are useless?

Bud's citations say that plug-ins work.
A protector must earth

No, in the case of a plug-in protector, as Bud outlined, the device limits the differential between hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to ground.
How does a plug-in protector earth without

Take that up with the IEEE.

So, I can take any size/rating MOV and pass any size current through it and if it fails, it violates the manufacturer's spec? What are they, a miracle device?

You are the only one here talking about surge protectors "absorbing" anything. You brought up the term.
If you

How is it that disaster results only from plug-in surge protectors and not from similar protection that you crow about that is built into electronic devices/appliances and located 4 ft away? Hmmm, neither one has a close by earth ground, do they?

Again, only you are talking about absorbing energy. I never said that. Bud didn't either. And to blow out a MOV all you need to do is hit it with current beyond what it is rated for. You apparently aren't aware that they have specs for max current and maximum energy disipation. It's a semiconductor, not an infinite current shunt.

Then why do manufacturers put surge protection into electronic eqpt and appliances that work under the same conditions? No, wait! They are even farther from earth ground by the length of the appiance power cord of about 4 ft.
Wire length (not diameter)

Take it up with IEEE and NIST.

If they were a fraction as dangerous as you claim, they would have been pulled from the market a long time ago.

Hmm, then why do they put the protection inside appliances that you have no problem with? But put similar, or better protection next to it in a plug-in surge protector, and according to you, it's useless.

I believe a blown out MOV could have turned on sooner, taking the surge hit before the protection inside the appliance. Or, being in parallel, it could take part of the surge and the protection inside the appliance could take part, where without the external surge protection, the appliance would have gotten the whole thing and had it's protection and/or the appliance destroyed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Start with datasheets from MOV manufacturers to understand any surge protector. Thihs will be long - chock full of tech specs and concepts.
If the MOV fails catastrophically, then the MOV operates completely outside "Absolute Maximum Parameters". Its datasheet is quite blunt. MOVs do not blow like fuses. In fact fuses and MOVs perform two completely different functions. But those who never learned how plug- in protectors work will often assume the protector acts like a fuse - as trader4 has just assumed.
Trader4 implies a protector will disconnect an appliance to stop a surge. That surge could not be stopped by three miles of sky. How does an MOV or fuse then stop or limit it? It only does when one (ie trader4) has no idea what these components do. As in previous posts, trader4 will cite no spec numbers, no citations, and cannot even say how a protector works. This post will be chock full of engineering sources, numbers, and quotes because plug-in protectors do not claim to provide protection AND because one effective 'whole house' protector with earthing provides massive protection - at tens of times less money.
How good is protection inside appliances? Trader4 denies this protection exist, but forgets to provide numbers. Industry standards even in 1970 defined 600 volt transients without damage. Computers defined in Intel specs must withstand AC electric voltages in the thousands of volts without damage. If trader4 has learned the technology, then he knew these well known standards.
How many volts much the NIC (network) withstand without damage? Again, rated for thousands of volts. trader4 calls that minimal protection? Fine. It is the protection inside electronics that can be overwhelmed if the surge is not earthed where the surge enters a building. Internal protection that can be overwhelmed if an adjacent plug-in protector earths a surge destructively through that appliance. Protection that means no appliance damaged because surges are earthed before entering the building. Appliance internal protection that makes daily (trivial) transients completely irrelevant.
Trader would have us believe no such protection exists? Many who know without first learning the numbers make those claims. Industry standard for 120 volt computer equipment. It must withstand transients up to 600 volts without damage. Intel demands even higher voltages computers. That is the internal protection standard in electronic appliances. What protects dimmer switches and GFCI from household generated surges? They all have internal protection. Protection that may be overwhelmed if the typically destructive surge is permitted inside the building. One 'whole house' protector properly earthed means no surge damage.
Bud's citation says protectors work IF there is an earth ground to divert to. Bud's citations also say a protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground may earth a surge .... 8000 volts destructively ... through the adjacent electronics. This is effective protection? Page 42 Figure 8. Does Trader4 deny that figure? The adjacent protector earths the surge through TV2 - and that is effective protection? Either the surge is earthed before entering the building (effective protection) or the surge is earthed destructively where? ... 8000 volts through an adjacent TV?
If plug-in protectors are so effective as Trader4 says, then where does the manufacture claim that in numeric specs? Why no listing for each type of surge AND no protection from that surge? Well, the plug- in protector may protect from a surge made irrelevant by protection already inside the appliance. What type of surge does it not protect from? One that seeks earth ground.
Every responsible source including IEEE and all of Bud's citations say that the protector works by earthing. How does the plug-in protector work without an earth connection? That is the point of Bud's citations. That is the point of Page 42 Figure 8. No earth ground connection. So it earths a surge 8000 volts through the TV.
Where does the IEEE make recommendations? Not in pamphlets. IEEE makes recommendation in standards. What does the IEEE Standard 141 (Red Book) say?

Other IEEE Standards also make similar demands for earthing. Earthing provides the protection. Even the NIST document (quoted earlier) says the effective protector works by *diverting* a surge to earth ground. If a dedicated connection to earth ground does not exist? Page 42 Figure 8. An 8000 volt surge gets earthed destructively through the adjacent TV.
As trader4 said, a protector might "limits the differential between hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to ground". Fine. The typically destructive type of surge is still seeking earth ground. The protector has distributed (shunted, diverted, connected, clamped) the surge onto all three wires ... and still seeking earth ground. Trader4 - stop denying Page 42 Figure 8. The surge is shunted to other wires. Therefore the surge now has more wires to find earth ground, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV.
Why do I know this? We have traced surges doing just that. In one case study, plug-in protectors on some networked computers earthed a surge into those adjacent computers. The surge passed through network cards to enter other computers - the path to earth ground. We literally replaced each damaged IC - traced the path of that surge. We made network cards and computers functional again because we learned how surges actually do damage. Protectors did connect the surge "differential between hot-neutral, neutral to ground, hot to ground" - as trader4 says. That gave the surge plenty of paths into the adjacent computers, through the network, and out to earth ground destructively via another computer. Again, damage occurred because the protector was too far from earth ground AND too close to electronics.
Only one of us has learned this stuff over many decades by even designing protectors AND by tracing out resulting failures - or complete protection. That engineering knowledge is not displayed by trader4. Trader4 has only posted what retail store salesmen claim.
I asked how a protector earths a surge without that short connection to earth. Trader4 said, "Take it up with the IEEE." I did long ago. And I quoted repeatedly from the IEEE. In every case, effective protection is defined by earthing as the IEEE says.
But then I went farther - and with numbers. Why does the telco switching computer connected to overhead wires all over town not suffer damage? Why does a typical thunderstorm send hundreds of surges to that switching computer - and no damage? Because every protector is earthed were wires enter the building AND up to 50 meters away from electronics. Why do telcos not use plug-in protectors that trader4 and Bud recommend? They learned 100 years ago what provides the protection. An earthed protector was even patented in the 1890s. Earthing. They want protectors that don't create those "scary pictures".
Then trader4 asks:

Obviously not. But then plug-in protectors often have that problem - too few MOVs (are so grossly undersized). A surge strikes protector and computer simultaneously (see how the protector is wired). Protection inside a computer is so robust that the computer is unharmed. But the protector inside a power strip is so grossly undersized as to fail - as trader4 says "blown out". The naive claim a protector sacrificed itself to save the computer. Reality: computer saved itself. That same trivial surge destroyed a grossly undersized protector. This failure promotes sales.
What happens when the same surge is earthed by a properly sized 'whole house' protector? Surge is earthed. Protectors remains functional. Human never even knows the surge existed. That is effective protection. But that does not get the naive to promote more sales of grossly overpriced plug-in protectors - including $150 models from Monster Cable.
Grossly undersized plug-in protectors sometimes create these 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 : http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FIRES.doc http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
So who makes 'whole house' protectors? Responsible companies such as GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Leviton, and others. Notice names missing such as Tripplite, Belkin, APC, and especially Monster Cable. Let's see. Take a $3 power strip. Apply some expensive paint. Install some $0.10 protector components. Sell it for $150. No wonder plug-in protector need people such as Bud to promote their products. Profits may be at risk. And then those "scary pictures". Don't put too many MOV inside. That would harm profits. An undersized (failing) power strip will have the naive assume, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".
Tell us trader4. If the plug-in protector magically protects by ""limits the differential between ...", then were does all that energy get dissipated? You claim the surge is dissipated by the MOV "between hot-neutral, neutral to ground," etc. So where does all that energy get dissipated? Inside a tiny MOV that is doing the limiting? If the MOV is doing limiting, then the MOV is absorbing all that energy. But even MOV manufacturers say that is not the purpose of the MOV. Well if the MOV absorbs too much energy, then it will fail - promote more sales. That energy must be dissipated somewhere. Tell us trader4 - since you deny so often and never provide facts - tell us where that energy is dissipated?
No earth ground means energy cannot be dissipated in earth. So where is that energy dissipated? In the MOV? Or on Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000 volts dissipates energy across the adjacent TV? The energy must be dissipated somewhere. How curious that IEEE Standards, all Bud's citations, any responsible source list where energy is dissipated. Either destructively in the building OR earthed harmlessly by a 'whole house' protector.
Let's see. Electrical Engineering Times just published two front page articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". What does an engineer define for effective surge protection? Protectors? Of course not. He discusses what provides the protection - where all that energy is dissipated. Read it yourself. From the 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007 issues of EE Times: http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807127 http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807830
Earthing provides the protection. Those articles don't even discuss protectors. But important for protection is the wire length to earth; it must be short for lowest possible impedance. Why does Kaufmann discuss earthing and short connections to earth? No earth ground means no effective protection. No earth ground means trader4 must claim energy is absorbed (or blocked) by the MOV. But that is not what an MOV does. As the NIST says on page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

What does a plug-in protector do without that low impedance connection to earth ground? If may shunt that energy 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV (Page 42 Figure 8) or it may shunt that energy through computer network (our analysis).
Trader4 - when will you tell us how the adjacent protector works? By limiting (your really mean shunted or diverting) that current, it simply gave the surge more paths to find earth ground destructively through adjacent appliances.
No wonder the telco puts their protectors up to 50 meters distant from their switching computer. No wonder the telco earths their protector so short. No wonder the telco can suffer 100 surges during each storm - and no damage. No wonder the telco does not use undersized and grossly overpriced ($15) plug-in protector. No wonder telcos do not use the same protectors selling for $150 in Radio Shack, Circuit City, et al. They want protection; not to enrich the manufacturer.
How much grasp of electronic design do you have? I said appliances contain effective protection. I did not say they contain MOVs as trader4 assumes. Trader4 asks:

They don't. Apple II once had MOVs inside. All electronic equipment contains internal protection. Nothing said it is provided by surge protectors. Apple no longer used MOVs in their equipment because MOVs located too far from earth ground do nothing effective. But again, trader4 did not first learn the industry numbers. Again trader4 made assumptions because he does not know how such equipment is designed. He denies everything about effective surge protection, somehow magically knows a grossly overpriced protector must provide protection, but does not even know how electronics routinely contain protection.
Trader4, take a walk through semiconductor databooks. Interface semiconductors. Why does the datasheet cite 15,000 volt protection? And without MOVs? And why is that protection defined by IEC1000-4-2 standards? Oh. Such internal protection is that high and that standard. Trader4 did not even know this? Which one of us is posting because he has learned the technology? I provided the voltage numbers. I provided the standards number. I quote what the IEEE Red book (and other IEEE Standards) require for protection. I provided the EE Times article that discussed earth ground for protection. I quoted same in all of Bud's citations. What does Trader4 know? Only what he was told by the retail store salesman. What kind of citation is that?
Trader4 provides only one thing. Denial.
No earth ground means no effective protection. One 'whole house' protector, properly earthed, is what dissipated the direct lightning strike harmlessly in earth. What does trader4 paraphrase? Bud who promotes for plug-in protector manufacturers.
w_tom took it up with the IEEE and learned what is required for effective protection long ago. w_tom built surge protectors to learn what does and does not work. w_tom traced direct lightning strikes to learn why damage occurred. w_tom has seen what is also demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8 - the protector that earthed a surge 8000 volts through an adjacent TV.
Who should we believe? Trader4 who has yet to cite a technical fact. Of this poster who is citing numbers, standards, energy, and concepts repeatedly. How curious that manufacturers with far better reputations - Square D, Leviton, Intermatic, Cutler- Hammer, Siemens, and GE - all make protectors with that dedicated earthing connection. Why would more responsible manufacturers do that when Trader4 says it is not necessary? Why would everyone's telco also install only properly earthed protection. Could it be that a protector without earthing is profitable rather than effective?
When does trader4 quote manufacturer numeric specs that claim protection? He cannot. Plug-in protectors do not even claim such protection. How to identify an ineffective protector? 1) No dedicated earthing wire. 2) Manufacturer will not discuss earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection. But don't worry. Page 42 Figure 8 - it may earth that surge 8000 volts destructively through the nearby TV. When that happens, the plug-in protector does exactly what trader4 says it does.
On Nov 11, 9:16 pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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

I never claimed that MOV's work like a fuse.

Never implied that either.
That surge could not be stopped by three miles of sky.
The typical surge arriving at an electronic appliance in your house is not a direct full lightening strike, so this has zero applicability.
How

It was clearly explained to you by Bud, but you don't listen, because you're on some kind of fanatic campaign.
This post will be chock full of engineering

Again, you're making things up. Please show me where I ever said this doesn't exist. All I said was:
1 - This protection inside the appliance, that you claim is capable of dealing with surges, is similar to the protection inside a plug-in surge protector. It has no DIRECT PATH TO EARTH GROUND. Yet you claim it can defeat surges. So, how is it that this can, but a plug- in surge protector, operating with the same limitations, cannot?
Industry standards

I'll compare my engineering and technology qualifications against you're any day, smart guy.

Again, you're making no sense. Surge components inside the appiance are peachy keen. But somehow putting similar in a plug-in that also opperates under the same conditions becomes ineffective and actually causes destruction? LOL

Again, you're making things up. Never said any such thing.
Many who

You want to talk about citations? This is like ignoring the 15ft elephant in the room. The IEEE lightning guide has a whole section where they talk about plug-in surge protectors. Do they say they don't work? No. Do they say they cause damage to appliances? No. Do they say they are a fire hazard? No. They talk about how they can be used in a home and state:
"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating and absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work better than either one alone."
Now, is that clear enough for you? It's exactly what I've been telling you. It was stated by the 5 authors of the IEEE lightning guide for homes. You want to attack their credibility or educational background too?
PS: Don't bother to spew on about the use of the word absorb in the above statement. Any reasonable person knows they are using that term loosely and it doesn't mean these degreed EE's think that the MOV is dissipating the energy instead of shunting it to ground.

How things are spec'd and whether they don;t work is too different things.
According to the IEEE, they work.

LOL The reference Bud provided you is straight from the IEEE and targeted at providing average people with an authoritative source on home protection. You think it's false, take it up with them.
What does the IEEE Standard 141

I should stop denying? LOL. You have the 15ft elephant in the form of the IEEE document clearly stating how plug-ins do work in direct contradiction to your rants and I'm the one in denial?

Why should I doubt your personal observations? You seemed very reasonable and balanced. LOL If anyone brought you a TV run over by a garbage truck, I'm sure after an investigation, you'd say the damage was caused by a plug-in surge protector.

No, Bud and I posed what the IEEE has to say about it.

See the part about elephants.

I could show you pics where all kinds of appliances and similar devices in the home caused fires too. That doesn't make them unsafe. There must be hundreds of millions of surge protectors in use. Finding a few that malfunctioned is no great revelation.

Yes, according to you, we should all rely on the protection inside the $2000 TV. I suppose no one has ever seen a TV where the internal protection was blown? LOL. I'd rather see it in a $15 plug-in than in the $2000 TV. So, would the IEEE, so if you have a problem with it, take it up with them and get back to us, OK?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 12, 9:44 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

What happens when lightning strikes wires highest on utility poles? A direct strike to household appliances similar in nature to a direct lightning strike on a commercial broadcast station, emergency response center, or telephone CO. Why is an appliance damaged? A direct strike finds earth ground, destructively, through that appliance. To lightning, those utility wires connect to your appliances just like an antenna to a radio station. What do those facilities install - religiously - for no surge damage? Better earth grounds and no plug- in protectors. What is the homeowner's solution? Same - but for so little money.
What happens when using a properly earthed 'whole house' protector? A homeowner need not install $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protectors. Now the homeowner can save money and eliminate risk of these 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 : http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FIRES.doc http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
Let's see. The well proven solution costs tens of times less money. It eliminates those scary pictures. It makes those grossly overpriced plug-in protectors unnecessary. It does not earth a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through adjacent appliances; another engineering fact on Page 42 Figure 8 that trader4 ignores or just does not comprehend. Page 42 Figure 8 where a plug-in protector (no earth ground connection) earths the surge destructively through a TV.
Trader4 still refuses to quote numeric specs that cite each type of surge AND protection from that surge. Based upon technical facts posted by trader4, he has no idea what different transients are. No wonder he also associated MOVs with fuses. Manufacture specs are no help. The manufacturer avoids admitting to surges it does not protect from. So what are these various surges? Trader4 posts no manufacturer specs because his knowledge is ... well, the manufacturer will not even make those claims.
The 15 foot elephant is missing technical facts posted by trader4. Somehow his denials of engineering and a belief in Bud half truths - that is knowledge? Trader4 rationalizes "the pamphlet discussed a plug-in protector; therefore it must protect from the typically destructive surge". Trader4 - learn the technology. It also says that earth ground is required to have protection. Why do you conveniently ignore that part? Ignore that fact and you can claim the plug-in protector does protect. It is called lying by ignoring the most important fact. A plug-in protector can do something effective ... if it has the earth ground that is does not have.
A plug-in protector will protect from one type of surge. A surge made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances. But trader4 also denies that internal protection exists. He even denies standards such as IEC1000. He denies because he does not possess necessary technical knowledge. Trader4 - it is a standard for the technically informed. I don't expect you to understand it. All you need understand is that protection inside appliances even makes indirect surges irrelevant. Protection that may be overwhelmed by the destructive surge - ie a direct lightning strike to utility wires. No plug-in protector claims to provide that protection.
Trader4 ignores what responsible engineers do routine for real world protection. As in every telco switching center, the protector is close to earth ground, AND up to 50 meters distant from electronics. Separation between electronics and protector is part of the protection. Apparently trader4 still does not even grasp the significance of wire impedance as stated in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" at: http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID 1807127
Trader4, is simple math for wire impedance too complex? Did you understand why EE Times discusses low wire impedance? Effective protection means the surge must be earthed by low impedance connections. That mean the 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection provide by 'whole house' protectors AND a connection not available on plug-in protectors. Could they be blunter? Effective protection is about making a low impedance connection to earth. Effective protection is not some protector absorbing surges as trader4 claims; as he learned from retail salesman.
. Notice engineers (ie the engineer at WXIA) don't post insults to prove effective protection. Where do they discuss plug-in protectors? They don't. They are discussing protection that works ... and that means earthing.
Trader4 - remember earthing - the 15 foot elephant you routinely ignore because, well, you even deny damage comes from direct lightning strikes. Meanwhile effective protection from direct lightning strikes even makes irrelevant trader4's indirect strikes (that are also made irrelevant by protection inside appliances).
Why does trader4 invent damage from indirect strikes? The plug-in protector is typically too grossly undersized (and no earthing) to address direct strike damage. So he invents this straw man - the indirect strike.
The informed homeowner ignores trader4 since his only prove come from remarks of disparagement. Do what every responsible professional recommends. ARRL, US Air Force, every telephone company, Telcordia, Polyphaser - an industry benchmark, IEEE green, emerald, and red book (Bud conveniently forgets all those IEEE standards demand earthing for protection), British Standard 6651, every commercial broadcasting engineer, all electric companies, rocket launch facilities, FAA communication towers, ... anyone who cannot have damage from surges requires earthing for protection. Every high reliability facility does not use plug-in protectors. They ignore these trader4 myths. Even Ben Franklin demonstrated the concept in 1752. What provided protection for a church steeple? The connection to and quality of earthing.
Trader4's denies it. Every responsible source cites earthing as essential. Earthing is the one system component that must always exist for protection. Some protector systems don't even use protectors. But still have that earth ground. From IEEE Standards that trader4 repeatedly ignores and Bud intentionally misrepresents (but then profits are at risk): In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the

From Bud's NIST citation:

From the front page article in EE Times:

From IEEE Emerald Book which Bud routinely misrepresents:

IEEE Green Book (Standard 142):

In an April 1997 discussion among ham radio operators about protecting everything (including station) from surge damage:

Still trader4 denies that direct strikes cause damage. Trader4 even ignores the engineering reality of these 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 : http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FIRES.doc http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. One properly earthed 'whole house' protector means no damage. Why waste $2000 or $3000 for plug-in protectors that don't even claim to provide that protection? Because plug-in protectors manufactures need those profits?
The responsible homeowner upgrades earthing to meet and exceed post 1990 NEC requirements and installs a 'whole house' protectors from responsible companies such as Siemens, Square D, Leviton, GE, Cutler- Hammer, Intermatic or others. The responsible homeowner need not waste big bucks on protectors that - well where does it even claim to provide protection? Where is the connection to "divert it to ground"? Telcos spend massively less money on 'whole house' protectors connected to earthing - and do not waste money on plug-in protectors. That is why telcos can suffer 100 surges during earth thunderstorm and no damage. These are the facts that trader4 ignores to believe Bud's myths.
The lurker need not waste money on myths. A 'whole house' protector is so effective that the telco even installs one on all (your) subscriber lines, for free. Again, what makes it effective? Follow a wire from their protector inside the NID to what? Earth ground. What is always required for effetive protection?
TV coax cable does not even need a protector. A properly installed cable is earthed directly - no protector - where it enters the building. And if they see a plug-in protector on your cable, the cable guy will suggest you remove it. It does nothing useful; only degrades the cable signal. Why does the cable guy not recommend what trader4 and Bud promote? Ask who is promoting protection and who is promoting retail sales propaganda? $150 for a Monster Cable box? With those profit margins, than honest becomes difficult.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More absurdity. These numbers are off by an order of magnitude from reality, just like most of the rest of your arguments.

Yes, keep posting pics of the handful of scary pictures from the hundreds of millions of surge protectors in use. I can post pics of car wrecks. Does that mean that all cars are inherently unsafe and you should not own one?

How about people living in a rental home? Or living in an apartment building? Or a co-op? Where they can't put a whole house protector in? According to you, what should they do? Answer that one please.

Bud already answered that one for you, pointing out that there are no such numeric specs provided for the whole house surge suppressors either, and that clearly doesn't bother you.

No, the 15ft elephant is that both the NIST and IEEE discuss home surge protection, talk at length about plug-ins, say they can be used effectively and safely and you continue to ignore it.
Here's the IEEE:
"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating and absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work better than either one alone."

Again, making things up. Never said any such thing. I only said that it makes no sense that you keep talking about the surge protection contained in appliances/electronic gear and claim it is effective. That built-in protection is very similar in concept and works under the same limitations as a plug-in, ie no close by earth ground. Or do your appliances come with an earth ground?
He even denies standards

Again, another blatant lie. Never denied any such thing.

So, I guess the IEEE and NIST recommendations were written and reviewed by irresponsible engineers. Let's take a look at the irresponsible, unqualified engineers that wrote the IEEE document that says plug-ins work. I've posted the authors credentials below. Hmmm, one of them is Chief Engineer at Cutler-Hammer. Another was manager of lightning protector development at Bell Labs. You keep spewing about how companies that make whole house suppressors and the phone company know so much more about surge protection than anyone else. And these engineers talk at length about using plug-ins, show scenarios using them, and say:
"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating and absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work better than either one alone."
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
Richard L. Cohen (Editor, Author) is a Consultant for lightning and surge protection. He was Vice President of Engineering at Panamax, Incorporated. Prior to joining Panamax, he was the manager for lightning protector development at Bell Laboratories. He started and was Chair of the IEEE Surge Protection Device Working Group 3.6.10, for multi-port surge protector standards, and is a member of the UL Standards Technical Panels for low-voltage AC protectors and lightning protection systems. Dr. Cohen is a Senior Member of the IEEE, and a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He holds a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Physics, and has seven patents, with four more applications pending. He has authored over 200 research papers and reviews. Doug Dorr (Author) is Director of Technology Development at EPRI Solutions, Inc. He has been involved in power quality research and surge protective device testing for the past 14 years. He is the Vice Chair of the IEEE Surge Protective Devices Main Committee and also Chair of the Low-Voltage AC Surge Protective Device Working Group. Mr. Dorr has been involved in development of more than a dozen standards and currently chairs the 2005 revision to the IEEE Emerald Book, an "IEEE Recommended Practice on Power and Grounding Electronic Equipment". He is a Senior Member of the IEEE, and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering, with electrical concentration, from the Indiana Institute of Technology in Fort Wayne, Indiana
James Funke (Associate Editor, Author) is Chief Engineer of Eaton's Cutler-Hammer business unit. He was previously Chief Engineer for Tycor International. He has specialized in surge protection research throughout his career. He is Chair of the IEC SC37A Technical Advisory Group reporting to the Standards Council of Canada. He is also the Chair of the CSA committee writing safety standards for SPDs, and actively participates on Surge Protection committees with NEMA and UL. Mr. Funke is contributing to several IEEE SPD Committee working groups on surge protection, and has received two Working Group awards for contributions to surge protection standards. He holds seven surge protection patents, with three more applications pending. He is an IEEE Senior Member and has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering (1988) and a Masters of Business Administration (2004). Chuck Jensen (Author) is Senior Engineer with Duke Power Company. He serves as a Power Quality Specialist, providing consulting engineering services to customers of the utility, and specifies and designs surge protection systems. He is a Member of the IEEE, serving on several IEEE SPD Committee working groups. Mr. Jensen also serves on the UL Standards Technical Panel for Surge Protective Devices, STP 1449, and is a Registered Professional Engineer in the states of North Carolina and South Carolina. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering (1984). S. Frank Waterer (Author) is a Staff Engineer at Schneider Electric. He provides consulting engineering services to commercial and industrial customers about power distribution systems, power equipment applications, grounding systems, protective relaying, ground fault protection, and surge protection. He is a Member of IEEE and is the Secretary of IEEE/SPDC. Mr. Waterer is a member of numerous IEEE, UL, NEMA, and ANSI working groups and technical committees relating to grounding and surge protection. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering (1980).

I'm sure you took whatever EE Times had to say completely out of context or made things up, just like you do here, claiming I said things that I never did. But, I think it is quite amusing that you would resort to EE Times, which is basicly a newspaper, while dismissing the 15ft elephant documents from IEEE, NIST, etc.

Another lie. Never said any such thing.
Meanwhile effective protection from direct lightning strikes

Another lie, didn't state that either.
The plug-in

Another lie, I never even used the term indirect strike.

Now, after all the disparaging crap you've spewed, this one is real special. But homeowners can decide who's advice is right and do what they want after they read the NIST and IEEE recommendations:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
Do what every responsible

Another lie.
Every responsible source cites earthing as

Again, you need to look at the whole picture. No where in any of the above does it say that plug-ins don't provide any protection or can't be used as part of a home protection strategy. Nor does it say they are a fire hazhard. The balanced view for the homeowner regarding surge protection is provided by highly credible engineers from IEEE and NIST.
There is one curious note about the last paragraph though. You dis- proved another one of your rants that hasn;t surfaced for a while. You've ranted on in the past about how if there is any lightning damage it's a human fault, because a properly designed system offers 100% protection. Clearly the last source refutes that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 13, 10:14 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

A problem was not shown in 1 million pictures. The NC Fire Marshall even describes why some fires occurred. To trader4, that proves the threat does not exist. Another Trader4 post chock full of denial reasoning twisted into factual proof. Bud posted his usual diatribe of half truths? A Bud post is also factual proof? Why does trader4 use a Bud claim as proof? Oh. Otherwise trader4 must learn technology? Trader4 even claims exploding MOVs provide safe protection. Manufacturers say otherwise. Trader4 - why did you know without first learning from manufacturer datasheets? Or am I assuming you can comprehend technical numbers?
Trader4 posts resumes. That proves people recommend protectors without earth ground? At least one of his 'experts' state that protectors must be earthed to provide effective protection. Why did trader4 forget to quote that part? Trader4 makes claims by posting half facts. He has a big resume. Therefore he must say protectors don't need earthing?
Examples from virtually every high reliability facility demonstrate what the effective protector does - shunt, connect, clamp, divert a destructive surge to earth. Manufacturers with far more responsible names make effective 'whole house' protector. Why? More facts that trader4 must ignore. Where is energy dissipated? Trader4 believes a silly little one inch part will absorb all surge energy? Without earthing, that surge energy is magically eliminated? Or too much energy gets dissipated in grossly undersized plug-in protectors; sometimes even creates 'scary pictures'. But trader4 says that 'scary picture' problem does not exist because not enough pictures were provided. So surge energy must magically disappear. Trader4 says so. It must be true. Trader4 must ignore.
Quotes the NIST and IEEE say protectors must be earthed. Both state surge energy must be dissipated in earth. How do trader4 and Bud get around this? They just ignore the parts they don't like. It is called denial. Simply ignore facts such as the essential need for earthing. It is called propaganda - rationalization by half facts. Trader4 just ignores.
Bud stopped quoting another favorite source because that source also said plug-in (point of use) protectors can even be destructive to adjacent appliances. How curious. Same was demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8. Matzloff's statement of fact was so fundamental as to be his first conclusion:

Manufacturer specifications claim protection as trader4 and Bud stated? Oh. Neither could provide one single manufacture spec number. Why no numbers? Plug-in protector manufacturers do not claim protection from the typically destructive surge. Why would they claim protection that does not exist? Best is to say nothing - ignore. No protection specs is trader4 proof that protection exists. How simple. Manufacturer specification will not even list the many types of surges - define no protection. That means protection must exist? Since those numbers do not exist, then protection must exist? Trader4 and Bud reasoning.
Why would the manufacturer claim protection? A $3 power strip with some fancy paint and a few $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $150. Why would the manufacturer risk such obscene profits with honesty? Since the fanatical trader4 *automatically knows* by selectively ignoring facts, then why confuse myths with numeric specs? Trader4 - where is surge energy dissipated when the protector has no dedicated earthing? Why does an EE Times report on electronics protection not discuss protectors; only discuss earthing? Where must surge energy get dissipated? Crickets.
No earth ground means no effective protection. Effective protection means surges are earthed before entering the building. Effective protection means a surge will not overwhelm protection already inside the appliance. Effective protection grounds a surge so that energy is dissipated harmlessly in earth; not 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
Responsible companies have well earned reputations AND make protectors with that 'all so critical' earthing connection. Effective 'whole house' protectors cost about $1 per protected appliance AND will protect the most critical electronic devices such as GFCIs, smoke detectors, and furnace. Many of those responsible manufacturer were listed previously. Protection will only be as effective as its earthing.
Some homes - especially those with two wire wall receptacles - must have breaker box earthing upgraded to post 1990 code requirements. No wiring changes are made inside the home. Surges earthed by one 'whole house' protector and 'upgraded earthing' means effective protection - without rewiring the entire house, without 'scary pictures', and without 8000 volts destructively through household appliances.
How many millions of 'scary pictures' and how many thousands of professional citations does trader4 need to admit a protector is only as effective as its earth ground? trader4 ignores what he can't understand - even when multiple IEEE Standards are quite blunt. Eathing is where surge energy is dissipated. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

w_s own hanford link is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
None of w_s links says there is a problem with listed surge suppressors manufactured after 1998.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

The usual lie. w_ likes to misconstrue the views of Martzloff in this paper.

w_ 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 surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in suppressors are effective.
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what Martzloff says about them.
w_ just keeps posting the same drivel which has been debunked.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are.
Still missing, as always. a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Still only w_s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. Why should anyone believe your ravings w_?
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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? - 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 does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device. - Why dont favored SquareD service panel suppressors list each type of surge? - Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10. What are w_s connections to surge protection equipment manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge? Why no answers to simple questions w_? Trader and I take apart w__'s arguments, but poor w_ can't respond to what technical sources really say.
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. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud--




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.