what is the differences between whole house surge protectors?

Page 3 of 4  


This is Bud again posting without first learning basic electrical engineering facts. Many automatically post denials without first learning basic electrical concepts. To mask insufficient technical knowledge, they would also post insults.
Will a direct lightning strike harm a 10 AWG wire? An informed Bud would have never posted that sentence. But again, I quote professionals. From the Electrical Engineering Times article entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients":

An 18 AWG wire is sufficient (marginal) to earth a typical 20,000 amp direct lightning strike without damage. Then we more than quadruple that ground wire so that a direct lightning strike still does not cause damage.
A sales promoter would not know this. A 10 AWG wire is more than sufficient to earth direct lightning strikes on cable and telephone. We then make that ground wire even four times thicker for AC electric - 6 AWG.
But again, the limiting factor is not wire gauge (thickness). Limiting factor is wire length and other critical parameters such as no sharp bends, not inside metallic conduit, and separation from other wires. Factors that provide lower impedance (not resistance) and better earthing will also make or break protector effectiveness. But again, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That means wire length. Even 10 AWG wire is sufficient to conduct direct lightnings strikes.
Effective protection means direct lightning strikes are earthed without entering a building and without damage. Not even damage to the protector. A 10 AWG ground wire from a phone 'whole house' protector (installed for free by telcos) or from coax cable (without any protector) will earth direct lightning strikes without damage. However wire to earth a dish is typically larger. A technically informed sales promoter would have known 10 AWG is more than sufficient.
And again, who not only knows the facts AND backs them up with numbers and professional citations? Not Bud who routinely resorts to posting insults.
Gary - important is know not from the numbers who agree. Important is to know from the minority who actually did this stuff. Whose designs suffered direct lightning strikes without damage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

As a mater of fact I read the article before I posted. The #18 wire 61kA rating is for the wire melting. That is not acceptable to most people. Using #10, the wire might not melt, it might only start a fire along its length. There are additional problems at the ends - as the article makes clear. Curves in the article for #10 wire have currents from about 50 to 80kA at more reasonable temperatures. Lightning can range well above that.
A real system for lightning protection, which uses lightning rods, has down wires far larger than #10 and there is normally more than one. If you want an idea what is needed for lightning protection look at a lightning rod system.

Lightning strikes to outside cable and telephone wires, as I said in a previous post, have multiple paths to earth. The phone/cable wire to your house does not take the full lightning strike. And the current is limited by the cable and phone wires themselves. The principle, in general, is that the "ground" wire has at least the cross sectional area of the phone/cable wires.
You certainly can protect a dish from a direct lightning strike. TomH's scheme would probably protect the house. But much as I respect his knowledge in the field, I don't think it would protect equipment. If you want to protect an antenna and equipment from a direct strike you had best do what a competent ham would do, which includes much more extensive protection.
And if you want to protect a house from lightning you need ground rods.
The scheme suggested by TomH would certainly provide good protection for practical hazards. As I wrote, I am just leery of a distant ground rod connected to signal wires. But the dish coax could also go through a ground block near the power service with a connection to the power earthing system.

And again, who not only knows the facts AND backs them up with numbers and professional citations? Not w who routinely resorts to trying to discredit others as a "sales promoter".
Professional citations? Still missing - any source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Professional citations? For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Also still missing - answers simple questions: - What "industry standards" require "all appliances" to "contain surge protection"? - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? - Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"? - 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 does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - Why arent airplanes crashing regularly - "no earth ground means no effective protection".
Why *never* any answers w??? Why should anyone believe anything you say if you can't answer simple questions???
--
bud--

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

Hey, if it melts, then it's a fuse, right? LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This is Bud again posting without first learning basic electrical engineering facts. Many automatically post denials without first learning basic electrical concepts. To mask insufficient technical knowledge, they would also post insults.
Will a direct lightning strike harm a 10 AWG wire? An informed Bud would have never posted that sentence. But again, I quote professionals. From the Electrical Engineering Times article entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients":

An 18 AWG wire is sufficient (marginal) to earth a typical 20,000 amp direct lightning strike without damage. Then we more than quadruple that ground wire so that a direct lightning strike still does not cause damage.
A sales promoter would not know this. A 10 AWG wire is more than sufficient to earth direct lightning strikes on cable and telephone. We then make that ground wire even four times thicker for AC electric - 6 AWG.
But again, the limiting factor is not wire gauge (thickness). Limiting factor is wire length and other critical parameters such as no sharp bends, not inside metallic conduit, and separation from other wires. Factors that provide lower impedance (not resistance) and better earthing will also make or break protector effectiveness. But again, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That means wire length. Even 10 AWG wire is sufficient to conduct direct lightnings strikes.
Effective protection means direct lightning strikes are earthed without entering a building and without damage. Not even damage to the protector. A 10 AWG ground wire from a phone 'whole house' protector (installed for free by telcos) or from coax cable (without any protector) will earth direct lightning strikes without damage. However wire to earth a dish is typically larger. A technically informed sales promoter would have known 10 AWG is more than sufficient.
And again, who not only knows the facts AND backs them up with numbers and professional citations? Not Bud who routinely resorts to posting insults.
Gary - important is know not from the numbers who agree. Important is to know from the minority who actually did this stuff. Whose designs suffered direct lightning strikes without damage.
I'm learning lots
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gary
You really have chosen an installation location that is very difficult to protect. If you bond the dish to the Equipment Grounding Conductor (EGC) of your attic lighting circuit then the voltage on that circuit would rise to a very high value during a lightning strike to the dish itself or anything near by. That will jeopardize anything on that circuit that also has a connection to a wire carried utility other than the power lines. It will also jeopardize the circuit itself as a lightning strike will destroy the insulation on the two insulated conductors when the voltage on the circuits EGC rises to a point well above the effective insulation puncture withstand of the cable.
You need to run a conductor of at least the gauge specified in the installation instructions all the way down to the ground. You then install a ground rod and connect the dishes grounding conductor to that rod. Here is the part that you will just hate. You then run a bonding conductor from that ground rod to the electrical Grounding Electrode System located at or near the the electrical panel. The minimum size for that bonding conductor is number six American Wire Gauge under the US NEC but larger would be better.
If you want to improve your homes lightning and surge / spike protection you will run the required bonding conductor around the house buried in the earth. Then as long as you use a bare conductor you will be increasing the earth contact surface area of the Grounding Electrode System.
-- Tom Horne
Thx Tom. My drywall is not up yet I can run a wire to an electrode that I drove in the basement next to the sump pit. I have that tied to a ground under the footing about 10' away. That is then tied into my panel. So I should tie into the ground rod and not the ground under the footing first?
Another quesstion. If lightening strikes my dish on the side of my house and I have the wire grounded though a ground wire on my attic circuit, is the burned out circuit the worst of my problems?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Appreciate EE principles that were posted earlier. Your concern is not resistance. Protection from AC electric (near DC) currents means that ground wire can be bundled with other wires, sharp bends, splicing, etc. But your ground must also carry high frequency surge currents. That means a connection to earth must be separated from other wires, no sharp bends, no splices, etc. That safety ground wire to an atttic light is low resistance; but high impedance. That is only a safety ground wire; not an earth ground. Connection to that safety ground wire would violate every (previously posted) earthing principle.
For example, the earthing connection must be separated from other wires. Safety ground wire inside Romex is bundled with other wires - a violation of the principles.
Tom Horne properly described how that dish can be earthed and bonded to meet code. Much work. A lesser ground is simply a ground wire directly to a dedicated electrode and best routed outside the building (for numerous reasons). Grounding the dish to a safety ground wire inside the attic would be a worst solution both for lightning protection and for human safety.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You propose to route a lightning strike from a roof mounted dish on your house inside to an ordinary attic electrical box, using the very end of the ground system, using probably 14 gauge wire, with who knows how many splices, 90deg bends, long length, etc., and you want to know if a burned out circuit is the worst of your problems?
How about when that kludged approach can't handle 25,000 amps, so after the lightning gets started down that path, it takes another one. You're sitting there watching TV and a fireball comes out of an outlet and zaps you in the ass? Or it sets the house on fire. Clearly you have no grasp of the concepts involved here. Call an electrician before you harm yourself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 06:08:03 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I'm beginning to think maybe Gary is a W_Tom sockpuppet. He's a little too "deliberately thick" to pass the sniff test easily.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what you are saying is that this is not a good idea. I THINK I GOT IT! :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Possibly, if lightning strikes the dish. Or more likely, it could blow up your satelite receiver, TV, etc. And it doesn't meet code. How lucky do you feel?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tom Horne accurately described how that dish is grounded to meet code. If your dish cannot be grounded to the building ground, better is to earth it as short as practical to a good earthing electrode. As Tom notes, to meet code, bury a conductor from that dish ground rod to the building earth ground. This also enhances the building earthing - makes better equipotential and conductivity. But as you have seen, most installers don't even spend money for a ground wire and ground rod.
Connecting to a ground wire inside the building is not earth ground. Not sufficient and dangerous including reasons that Tom Horne has provided.
How much danger is that dish at? How often does lightning strike in your neighborhood? In some locations, lower land is more often struck (that lightning strikes higher locations is often a myth). Frequency of lightning is related more to geology and other factors. But since earthing a dish is so simple, then a direct and short connection from dish to earth is preferred.
Also recommended is to keep the dish antenna lead outside until it is earthed at the service entrance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing in the above contradicts anything that Bud has said.

Bud never said clamping dissipates surge energy.

Maybe because the central office doesn't consist of equipment that is plugged into AC outlets like you'd find in a home? And actually the telcos do use a tiered approach to protection and do not just rely on a single point of supression. In addition to protection on the phone wires and AC entering the builiding, there is also surge protection on the actual line cards contained in the switch, where the phone wires terminate.

Which brings us to another glaring contradiction in your claims that we've been through before with no answer. All appliances, electronic gear, etc have surge protection built-in. They use MOVs, the same components used in plug-in surge protectors, though smaller. Last time I checked, these appliances and electronic gear do not have a direct 10 ft connection to an earth ground. Yet, Tom has told us many times how that protection inside the appliance is effective. So, with no earth ground, how can that be?
One thing is for sure. I'd rather have the MOV inside a $20 plug-in surge protector see any surge, rather than the one inside my $2000 TV.

Since you want to use Southwestern Bell as a reference, let's look at the whole picture. First, SB clearly says that a whole house primary surge protector will provide a solid FIRST LINE of defense against surges. Clearly that does not contradict the NIST, IEEE, etc, who Bud has frequently cited. The NIST, IEEE, etc show whole house surge protectors used in COMBINATION with plug-in surge protectors.
What Southwestern Bell says, is very different from Tom's claim that plug-in surge protectors do not work and actually cause damage. In fact, Southwestern Bell sells plug-in surge protectors:
(Amazon.com product link shortened) Southwestern Bell S60860 Travel Telephone Surge Protector
That's right. They actually sell them. And also, the vast majority of companies that manufacture and sell whole house surge protectors also sell plug-in protectors too and discuss how to use them as part of an overall protection strategy. These are the very same companies that you regularly cite as authorities on surge protection, but clearly they don't agree with you.

Bud may follow you, but it seems you are the one that scours the internet to find anything to do with surges and then renews this same thread, without adding anything new. I take that back. This time you did add the Southwestern Bell citation which not only doesn't say what you claim it does, but SB actually sells plug-in surge protectors. And in all these threads, I don't think I've yet seen one person in any of them that agrees with you that plug-in surge protectors are useless and actually cause damage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:

Westcom,
You are oversimplifing. true Earth ground is a good idea in many cases but you don't NEED TO HAVE a true Earth ground to provide surge protection... there are other ways to do it...
You do know that they have lightning surge protection on electronics in airplanes.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 9, 10:32am, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

So show me where that surge energy gets dissipated? A surge protector does not magically stop or absorb surges. Show me where energy get dissipated if not in earth? There is no way around earthing for protection (as maybe ten professional citations state in another post). But since you know a 100 years of industry professionals are wrong, then tell us where that energy gets dissipated? Show us how your protector design does it better.
You made the claim. Now let's see the science on how it is done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

For instance you could build a metal shed in the back yard completely insulated from the earth (maybe on a 4 foot high pile of glass bottles). The power service panel has a surge suppressor. Phone and cable entry protectors have short wire to the power "ground". There would have to be a suppressor from cable center conductor to "ground", or plug-in suppressors. The shed "ground" is not earthed at all. Everything inside is protected with no earthing at the shed. (The service panel suppressor has lower surge currents than if it was earthed, thus lower energy absorption.)
There are always multiple paths to earth, many provided by the utilities. Poor w doesn't seem to be able to figure out multiple earth paths.
The shed is not practical. But just like in the shed, much of the protection in a house is from having all wires - power and phone and cable - at the same potential. If a house has a higher resistance to earth it means the interior wires may float to a higher voltage above "absolute" earth potential. Even with a relatively good earth connection, the interior wires can be thousands of volts above the earth potential in parts of a concrete basement.
w forgot to include part of Marks post: "You do know that they have lightning surge protection on electronics in airplanes." w has never explained how you can protect an airplane when there is no earth ground - "no earth ground means no effective protection".
--
bud--

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

Another problem that a sales promoter hopes you avoid - scary pictures: 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 http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 / http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm
Most every fire department has seen this danger. An ineffective protector attempting to stop and absorb a serious surge. Damage also gets the naive to promote more ineffective power strips. A fire marshal even states why that hazard exists. Read it.
Bud is paid to promote power strip protectors. Bud must turn this discussion long and nasty so that you ignore well proven and less expensive solutions - earthing one 'whole house' protector. Even discuss airplanes which he knows is completely different and irrelevant. Anything to avoid reality such as those scary pictures of protectors he is paid to promote.
A GE white paper also explains how power strip protectors create fires as demonstrated by the above 2007 Boston apartment fire:

See those scary pictures to appreciate why Bud posts incessant attacks. Should you learn why high reliability facilities do not use plug-in protectors, then profits are at risk.
Bud says a power strip will stop and absorb what even three miles of sky could not. Scary pictures demonstrate what otherwise happens. Why does Bud never post a power strip numeric spec? He cannot post what does not exist. So Bud wants to discuss something completely different - airplanes. Power strip protectors are not permitted on airplanes. Appreciate one reason why. See those scary pictures.
Norma on 27 Dec 2008 in alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage" also describes the danger:

According to Bud, Norma was lying. Otherwise profits are at risk. So Bud would rather attack the messenger.
Effective protection means surge energy is dissipated (and diverted, shunted, clamped, connected, bonded, conducted) harmlessly in earth; does not enter the building. A solution that costs tens or 100 times less money is also so reliable as to be used anywhere that damage cannot occur. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:
>>

w forgot to answer the question - how do you protect an airplane if "no earth ground means no effective protection".

w refuses to understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since 1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.
But with no valid technical arguments all w has is pathetic scare tactics.

w is so pathetic. If he had valid arguments he wouldn't lie about others.

Where is the source??? Suppressors are actually tested by UL.

The village idiot repeats the lie because he can't understand what the IEEE guide clearly explains. Plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping.

w's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).
Still missing - another lunatic that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Still missing - answers simple questions: - What "industry standards" require "all appliances" to "contain surge protection"? - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? - Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"? - 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 does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? - Why arent airplanes crashing regularly - "no earth ground means no effective protection".
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

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

Bud
It might be helpful to those trying to sort the good advice from the bad advice if you refrained from calling Tom W. an idiot. Name calling causes people to get turned off and skip over otherwise good advice. I'd suggest we leave the libel to the person who has made the provably false statements about you in these forums. I base this suggestion on the old country style advise that it is unwise to wrestle with a pig because you will get filthy rotten dirty and the pig will enjoy it. Additionally even though Tom W may be terribly misinformed on this issue as well as being the stubbornest person who's opinions I've been subjected to he is not an idiot per se. Lets leave the mud slinging to those that have no such weapons as reasonable argument and honest debate to bring to bear and therefore have to resort to name calling.
For what it is worth. -- Tom Horne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let me take the liberty of responding to your question about Mark's excellent point. In a single word: Clamping
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
westom wrote:

w again does what he does routinely - troll google groups for "surge" to post his religious dogma about suppressors.

I promote only accurate information to counter w's religious dogma. And I am a regular participant in this newsgroup

Poor w is insulted by reality.

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association with surge protectors is I have some.
But if poor w had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to try to discredit others..

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor

Because of his religious blinders the village idiot can't read in the IEEE guide how plug-in suppressors work - clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. They don't work by stopping or absorbing. Or magic.

In addition to trader's answer, thousands of telephone lines would have to connect through the plug-in suppressor.

I promote only accurate information. And it is only magic for the village idiot. Others can read the explanation in the IEEE guide.

Answered nicely by trader.

The lie repeated - specs have been posted often and ignored by the village idiot . For instance over a year ago in this newsgroup. http://tinyurl.com/6alnza

Repeating: Service panel suppressors are certainly 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.

w will continue posting until he has the last word. His religious belief in earthing has been challenged and cracks are developing in his universe.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w can't find another lunatic that agrees with him that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w's opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.
And w never answers 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"?
Plus questions from previous threads here: - 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 [plug-in] protector"? - 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 does responsible manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?
--
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.