Zero Surge does not use MOVs in their suppressors. Their pitch is to
discredit MOV based suppressors. Their propaganda, last I looked, was
If there is high voltage between power and signal wires you can't
protect without a multiport suppressor. The NIST guide suggests
equipment is most likely to be damaged by high voltage between power and
With thousands of amps from a lightning strike spreading out from the
point of earthing the potential of the earth rises. It is easy to get
thousands of volts between separated ground rods near the strike. The
thousands of volts will appear at equipment connected to power and phone
The IEEE guide says you can have the same problem at equipment like a
pad mounted A/C compressor/condenser. With a very near strike the pad
and equipment can be a very different potential from the power system
ground and power wires.
It should be illegal to be that stupid.
If a strong surge on power wires is earthed through its ground rod the
potential at the distant phone ground rod can be thousands of volts
It sure inspires confidence when you know what to do and the utility
still does it wrong.
The phone company should be liable for any damage.
You could try a complaint to whatever agency regulates the phone company
to get compliance at all installations. In MN some dish installers were
required to go back and properly bond their installations.
I dont like daisy chaining. I am talking about a separate suppressor at
the 2nd TV plugged into the outlet at the 2nd TV with the cable wire
going through it. (It is what the IEEE guide says to do.)
They're $aving fu$e$. A corporation's duty is to maximize profits.
The distance between a cow's hooves is enough to wipe out a herd when
lightning strikes a nearby tree.
It must be widely known. I suspect that Bellsouth owns NC regulators.
My neighbor calls himself a handyman but won't take ten minutes and ten
cents to remedy the problem.
different from the ground at the other, won't you get a surge through
the shield of the cable? Won't that induce high voltage in the signal
conductor? I believe a cable company uses special technology to deal
with the problem between their facility and your service entrance, but
it's your problem within your house.
There is surge current on the shield from the cable entry ground block
to the 1st plug-in suppressor that is likely larger.
And surge current on the cable service shield to the ground block that
is much larger.
I wouldn't say induce.
If you pull the shield to a different potential, the signal conductor
could be nearer the far end potential. Plug-in suppressors limit the
voltage from signal conductor to the ground at the suppressor, just like
all other wires. It is one reason to use a plug-in suppressor.
The same problem is likely at the 1st suppressor.
And the same problem is likely at the cable entry ground block. It is a
problem that w ignores because it does not fit in with his religious
views. w says the only cable protection you need is the entry ground block.
Haven't heard of any cable company technology.
With cable shields connected to earth at each house (and earth potential
different) I don't know why there isn't a major ground loop problem (not
surge related). Even worse, the neutral is connected to the cable shield
at every house. I would think the hum level would be way above the
signal level. Maybe a high pass filter is very effective.
Anyone know why ground loops aren't a problem?
They are made here where I live in Chicago. I talked to a few people
at Tripp here after a few of their units took the beating of a major
strike, the tripps literaly smoked, and what they were used on
survived. Where I didnt have them I fried. I can see several points
why it would not be recommended by them in writing, but by their
design of the units I use, and that being each socket further away
from the 120v wall plug having an additional Mov, it just makes sense
it works. In reality daisy chaining may do nothing as I believe their
better units do all that can be expected of them. Gee I hate
lightning, it can ruin a nice day.
You assumed protectors somehow stop or absorb surges. They don't.
Do you really think that protector will stop what three miles of sky
A surge first creates a path from cloud to earthborne charges. Then
surge current - electricity -flows simultaneously and equally through
everything in that path. Effective protectors don't try to stop or
absorb that energy. One dffective protector connects a surge to earth
- as the NIST says:
Where does surge energy get harmlessly absorbed? In earth. A
protector is only a connecting device to protection - earth.
Protector and protection are two separate items. A protector located
too far from protection (earth ground) may divert that surge
destructively in other paths inside a building.
E Z Peaces describes a 'whole house' protector. But also describes
a protector apparently with insufficient earthing. One 'whole house'
protector means the surge does not even enter the building; need not
seek earth ground through a computer or other appliances. Again,
first the path from cloud to earth is created. In his case, that
connection to earth was through some appliances - destructively.
A surge that does not enter the building does not seek earth - which
is what every telco everywhere in the world does. Effective earthing
making the original question - connecting protectors in series -
irrelevant. Your telco connected to overhead wires all over town may
suffer 100 surges during each thunderstorm. How often how has your
town been without phone service for four days while they replace their
computer? Telcos don't daiychain protectors. Telcos locate every
protector where each wire enters the building - and making the
shortest possible connection to earth.
Where does surge energy get dissipated harmlessly? In earth.
What a protector connects surges to - where surge energy gets
absorbed - is surge protection - earth ground. Every wire inside
every incoming utility cable connects short (ie 'less than 10 feet')
to earth either using wire (ie cable TV, satellite dish) or via a
'whole house' protector (AC electric, telephone).
Not just any earth ground. All must make a short connection to the
same earth ground electrode.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Where do your
daisy chained (in series)protectors make that "low impedance"
connection to earth? Why do commercial broadcast stations and ham
radio operators routinely suffer direct lightning strikes and never
have damage? Why do telcos not use your plug-in protectors? They
need protection. Protectors connect as short as possible to earth so
that surges need not enter a building. Never damage that telco
switching computer. Nobody will stop or absorb what three miles of
sky could not.
bud will now reply with nasty and insulting comments because he is
paid to do so.
It will become obvious. Meanwhile, surges are electrical
connections from cloud to earth. First a path forms. Then electric
current flows simultaneously through everything in that path. If
anything attempts to stop that current, then voltage increases as high
as necessary to blow through that obstruction.
Surge protectors do not stop and do not absorb surges. An appliance
is connected directly to AC mains if using no power strip, one power
strip or five power strips in series. Doubt it? Then break one
open. Connection to AC mains is electrically direct. Nothing inside
to obstruct a surge.
Protection means the surge does not enter a building. Protection
means a surge finds earth ground before entering the building. It was
done that way even 100 years ago and is still installed in any
facility that can never suffer damage.
Direct strikes without damage are routine. If damage does happen,
a human has made a mistake. Never, but we humans have no way to test
our designs. First test is when a direct strike occurs. If surge
damage occurs, we humans have made a mistake. Then go looking for
where we made that mistake. But as long as the simple surge
protection system is properly installed, then direct lightning strikes
do not cause damage even to the protector.
An example. In one location, lightning struck incoming power,
ignored the building single point earth ground, and traveled across
the house. Why? Apparently a vein of graphite existed on far side.
Better earth ground was through the house into that graphite vein.
Damage occurred which means we made a mistake. Solution was to expand
single point earth ground a buried loop outside the building.
Incoming surges could obtained earth on a buried loop; need not find
earth ground destructively inside the house.
Human failure corrected. Direct strikes without damage. Geology is
a critical part for protecting household appliances. The protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.
Actually, even whole house surge protectors deal with the surge after
it has entered the building. They are typically installed in the
main panel, which in most cases is inside the building.
And if the only possible way of dealing with surges is an earth
ground, how is it that aircraft have surge protection which deals with
static discharge and lightning strikes?
On May 5, 1:02 pm, email@example.com wrote:
Aircraft use same protection techniques. In fact, runways must be
specially constructed with earthing so that surge protection and
static discharge problems are automatically eliminated. Connecting an
airplane to a better earthig is an essential part of aircraft safety
procedures. Protection is never about stopping or absorbing surges or
static. Protection even in aircraft is about diverting a surge so
that energy is harmlessly dissipated elsewhere.
Of course trader has read this previously - should know it by now if
trying to learn rather than just make wild accusations. His agenda is
to create confusion. Obviously, the OP is not asking about power
strip protectors in series on an airplane. Why is trader?
Uh huh. Now we're getting somewhere. They do use some of the same
protection techniques. And that includes surge protection that uses
clamping to keep various parts of aircraft systems at the same
But they sure don't have a direct, short connection to earth ground,
which you have claimed many, many times is the only way to have any
> In fact, runways must be
Funny how you now want to move the discussion to aircraft on the
ground. What about when they are at 40,000 ft, with no earth
Oh bother. Buds agenda is to sell surge protectors. Now my agenda
is to create confusion, because I point out obvious big holes and
contradictions in your assertions. What's your agenda?
On May 6, 12:24 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Aircraft have two wire AC circuits with daisy chained power strip
protectors? How many times do you post irrelevant to the OP's
questions? Even airplanes need earthing which is why runways have
extensive earthing systems to ground airplanes. And still completely
irrelevant to the OP's question - which trader does not answer.
Why did plug-in protectors damage a network of powered off
computers? Protectors without earthing do not absorb surges as trader
claims. Do not absorb surges as a daisy chain of power strips must
do. Those protectors - even if in a daisy chain - simply gave a surge
more paths to find earth ground destructively through the entire
network. Diverts the surge to earth - which can be through the
adjacent computer or TV if too close to appliances and too far from
earth ground. Protector simply gave a surge on more wires - and put
many thousands of volts onto those appliances.
How curious. Page 42 Figure 8. Using a power strip protector, the
surge was earthed 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV.
Nothing stops or absorbs surges. Same problem that we engineers saw
and corrected by earthing a 'whole hosue' protector - and no power
Surge protection is about keeping surges outside the building.
Current that does not flow inside a building and does not flow through
appliances causes no damage. Current that is diverted harmlessly into
earth creates no destructive voltage. Simple solution that also costs
less money. Better earthing and only one 'whole house' protector is
even necessary to protect power strip protectors as well as protect
everything else. An effective protector that costs the OP maybe $1
What does trader recommend? He wants to argue about airplanes.
Those with so much animosity also have trouble even remembering the
OP's question. Little hint: the newsgroup is called alt.home.repair.
It's irrelevant what circuits they actually have. The key point is
that those circuits are obviously protected against static and
lightning surges while flying at 40,000 ft where there is no earth
ground. According to Tom, no protection is possible without a
direct, short connection to earth ground. So, how can that be?
How many times does Tom hyjack a thread and turn it into a rant on the
alleged evil of plug-in surge protectors? Classic example is the
other thread, where the OP asked how to add a ground to a 2 wire
circuit over a slab. Next thing you know, there;s Tom ranting about
Gee, what happens in the air? Is there earthing there too?
>And still completely
Bud and a couple others did an excellent job of answering the
question, perhaps you missed it.
Where exactly did this occur? Forgive me if I question your
credibility, but I have to when you misquote an IEEE guide that
actually recommends plug-in protectors and run around telling everyone
that the IEEE says in that guide that it was a plug-in protector that
destroyed a TV. So, link please.
Never claimed any such thing.
With a plug-in surge protector clamping all the wires going into an
appliance, it's very unlikely that path is going to destroy the
appliance. But without it, it is likely that it could be destroyed.
> Diverts the surge to earth - which can be through the
This is a perfect example of how Tom takes anything and everything
of context and turns it into an outright lie. Tom doesn't provide any
link so others can easily take a look for themselves and figure out
that it actually says the opposite of what Tom says it does. Here's
An here is what the text associated with the referenced figure 8 on
page 42 actually says. Pay special attention to the last sentence.
"Figure 8: Ground potential differences within a building under
conditions: how down-line TV sets get damaged. With a 3,000A surge
rising in 3 μs,
and a 30 foot ground bond (A-C), ~10,000 V develops between A and C.
Even with a
multi-port protector (D) for TV1, the ground voltage at D is conveyed
to TV2 by the
coaxial cable, resulting in an 8,000 V potential across TV2, which
will probably destroy
it. A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to
Clearly the IEEE did not say that the damage at TV2 is CAUSED in any
way by the surge surpressor on TV1. And they clearly say that using
a plug-in surge protector on TV2 would protect it, which is 180 deg
opposite of everything that Tom says.
You've already forgotten what I just taught you a few posts ago.
Even with a whole house surge protector, in most cases surges are not
kept outside the building. The surge protector is typically located
in the main panel, which in most cases is inside the building.
On May 6, 6:27 pm, email@example.com wrote:
What did that protector do? To provide protection, surge energy
must be dissipated somewhere. A connection to earth was 8000 volts
through TV2. Or you must spend $5000 or $15,000 for plug-in
protectors for everything ... dishwasher, microwave, bathroom GFCI,
dimmer switches, timer switches, smoke detectors ... to have
protection. IOW enrich bud.
Where damage can never happen, ie telco CO (switching center), they
don't waste money on plug-in protectors. Responsible facilities earth
a 'whole house' protector on every incoming wire. Now the surge need
not find earth ground destructively through TV2, the furnace, washing
machine, etc. Instead, the surge is earthed before entering the
building. Effective protection for about $1 per appliance.
Or we can argue to create more confusion. If the surge enters a the
breaker box and is then earthed five feet outside that box, is a surge
in any bedroom, living room, hallway, kitchen, etc? Of course not.
Because that surge does not enter the building - no matter how trader
Next trader will discuss airplanes to create even more confusion?
Page 42 Figure 8. A surge is permitted inside the building. Surge
finds earth ground such as 8000 volts destructively through TV2.
Surges earthed before entering a building will not overwhelm
protection that is already inside every appliance. Anywhere that
surge damage cannot happen: earthing and a 'whole house' protector.
No earth ground means no effective protection. OR the surge finds
earth ground 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances.
How curious. bud's NIST citation says the exact same thing:
Page 42 Figure 8. No earthed protector. So that protector simply
*diverted* that surge 8000 volts destructively through TV2. Page 42
Figure 8 - even the world's best power strip is useless BECAUSE
grounding is not done properly.
So do you discuss airplanes again? trader is not trying to
Surge protection means that energy is harmlessly dissipated in
earth; need not even enter the building to 8000 volts destroy the
adjacent TV. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground ...
which is necessary for any building that must never suffer damage.
$1 per protected appliance or $5000 in power strip protectors.
According to the IEEE guide, the plug-in surge protector protected TV1
from damage. And they clearly state that had TV2, ie the damaged TV,
had a plug-in, it too would have been protected. They state that
the lightning strike raises the ground potential at one end of the
house by thousands of volts and that is carried by the COAXIAL CABLE
to damage TV2. In other words, everything, as usual is 180 deg
opposite of what you claim it says.
The above claim that it costs $5K- $15K for plug-in surge protectors
for a house gives a good view into your lack of grounding in
reality. Pun intended.
As I pointed out to you in a previous thread, not only does the telco
CO have surge protection at the point of entry, they also have surge
protection on every line card where the phone line actually terminates
at the CO switch. That protection typically includes MOVs, which
operate on the line card, as they do inside appliances or plug-in
surge protectors. Which is to say protection is provided without the
benefit of a direct short connection to earth ground, which is 180 deg
opposite to what you claim. I even provided you with a datasheet from
National Semiconductor for their line card semiconductors, where they
discuss the fact that protection must be provided on the line card.
One more credible reference that refutes what you claim, but you just
Of course all the credible references say that just isn't so. Bud
has explained this to you a dozen times. A lightning strike has such
a high current, that even with a well grounded system, the current
going through the whole house surge protector can result in thousands
of volts still being present. Do the math. 10,000 amps times 1
Explained to you yesterday, why this is wrong X2. Not only is a
surge still possible even with a whole house protector, but even the
main surge going through the whole house protector, in most cases, is
actually inside the house because the AC panel with the surge
protector is typically located inside the house.
How is it that aircraft at 40,000 feet are protected then?
> OR the surge finds
As Bud would say, the lie repeated.
Which of course is NOT what the referrence actually says:
"Even with a multi-port protector (D) for TV1, the ground voltage at D
is conveyed to TV2 by the coaxial cable, resulting in an 8,000 V
potential across TV2, which will probably destroy it. A second multi-
port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2."
On May 8, 9:59 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
TV is 8000 volts damaged because a surge current was permitted
inside the building. That surge current had to find earth ground.
With or without the power strip, it will find earth ground
destructively through some appliance.
We install and earth on 'whole house' protector so that no surge
current enters the building. One properly earthed (ie less than 10
foot) 'whole house' protector means the surge finds and is harmlessly
dissipated in earth. Does not enter the building. Does not get
earthed by the power strip protector 8000 volts through any appliance.
Why do telcos all over the world not use that power strip
protector? They need protectors that make that short connection to
earth that actually provide protection. They need nothing damaged.
Apparently trader considers appliance damage acceptable.
Same solution is available for all homes. One 'whole house'
protector sells in Lowes for less than $50. That means one protector
for maybe 100 items. But you would have them spend $5000 on power
strips for everything including the furnace, smoke detectors, and
bathroom GFCIs? Which scam are you promoting? An earthed surge does
not overwhelm protection that already exists inside every appliance.
TV2 is damaged because it wasn't protected, as anyone but w can figure out.
Service panel suppressors are 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. The NIST guide, citing insurance
information, suggests most equipment damage is from high voltage between
power and signal wires.
Ho-hum - the lie repeated.
And in fact a service panel suppressor would provide *NO* protection
from 8000V in the IEEE example. The 8000V comes from the cable service.
w has never explained how a power service suppressor would fix 10,000V
coming in on the cable service.
In fact, for the problem in the IEEE example the IEEE says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
As trader has said several times, telcos may use similar protection with
MOVs at the equipment.
Is I have said numerous times it is stupid to suggest a telco switch
would use a plug-in suppressor. A telco switch is high amp, is hard
wired, and would have to have thousands of signal wires going through it.
Of course still never seen - anyone that agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors are effective. Because no one agrees with w.
Of course never answered - simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?
And (with some overlap):
1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.
2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?
3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
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.