Whole house phoneline surge protection

Page 3 of 4  
w_tom wrote:

That is because "each type of surge" is nonsense. w_'s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD, for example, does not list "each type of surge". .

w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." .

Selectively quote? Poor w_ ignores what Martzloff clearly said about plug-in suppressors.
w_ tried to similarly mischaracterize the views of Martzloff coauthor Arshad Mansoor on alt.engineering.electrical and provoked a response from an electrical engineer: "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL." .

w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As others have stated, the telco protector has to be grounded to work. It sounds like you have a grounding issue.
The way these things work, is that when the voltage reaches a certain level then the device shorts to ground. Earlier devices use carbon blocks with an air gap between them. This limited the voltage exposure to 1000 volts which was adequate for rotary phones but not necessary for modern electronics. The next generation used gas tubes which provide better protection (around 365V, if I remember correctly). The following generation used solid state devices which provided even better protection.
The question is what do you have. Depends on the age of your installation. If you still have carbon blocks, I would see if the telco would upgrade your protector. If you have a network interface then you probably have gas tubes or solid state which is the best the telco will supply.
As for the suggestion of making your own protector. I believe that the ring voltage is 220 volts. I would not use 160V MOV as someone suggested. There are companies that make telco protectors. Most use cheap MOVs. If you can find one with solid state device which react quicker, it would offer better protection but at a higher cost.
Part of the problem is tthat device manufacturers often do not realize the voltages that can occur on telephone lines. The cheaper equipment manufacturers often use components that cannot withstand these voltages. It is easy to blame the teleco but the reality is that the current generation protector offer the best protection while allowing the network to work. I admit I am bias since I used to work for the group that designed these protectors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
All of my computer-stuff is plugged-into a UPS (APC Back-UPS "RS" 1500).
I think I have the phone going through its phone-socket too.
What protection from surges might I be getting here?
Thanks!
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Combs wrote:

My Ouija board broke last week, so I cant tell.
As I wrote, if you are using a plug-in suppressor all wires going to a set of interconnected equipment must go through the suppressor.
Ratings are important. High ratings are readily (and cheaply) available in plug-in suppressors. High ratings are less common in a UPS.
Any plug-in suppressor (including UPSs intended to suppress surges) should be listed under UL1449 (in the US).
--
bud--

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

Are you saying that a $15 or $20 surge-surpressor (rectangular box with 5 or 6 sockets in it) is (often) *higher* rated than what comes with a $300 UPS?
If so, what an unpleasant surprise!
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Combs wrote:

The protection provided by a UPS is for power loss to allow orderly shutdown. The kind of UPS commonly used does not intrinsically provide surge protection. But surge protection, the same as in plug-in suppressors, is commonly added.
I recently bought a major brand plug-in suppressor with ratings of 590J and 30,000A per MOV, 1770J and 90,000A total for under $30. I dont have a UPS and have not looked closely at them, but what I have seen is relatively low surge amp/Joule ratings. My personal preference would be to plug a UPS with low or no ratings into a plug-in suppressor with high ratings. I may go for excessively high ratings, but high ratings mean the suppressor is very unlikely to ever fail. They also often have a protected equipment warrantee.
What little looking at UPSs I have done I also didn't see a UL1449 listing.
Perhaps most important is, as I wrote above, all wires going to a set of interconnected equipment must go through the suppressor.
--
bud--

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

You need to look a little closer before making judgement calls. UPS equip is available with some very impressive ratings in the general market. Take a look at the specs of some of the major manufacturers; I mean actually look at them, not just glance at the Home Pages.

Careful: Some UPS's specifically state NOT to plug them into power strips, not just because the power strip might be turned off, but more importantly, what you call "high ratings" plugged into another "high ratings" product could cause ringing, an oscillatory effect that would rise in magnitude due to resonances, until something broke, usually with smoke. "High ratings" are obviously beneficial, but not when they're impratically assembled in opposition to the manufacturing instructions. A UPS is a lot more than just a set of components to protect against surges. In addition, the joules that a UPS can tolerate are inherently high because there is a battery and/or a transformer between the line and the regulated output that in itself allows the spiking without damage. It's when there are unregulated outputs also provided that the "high ratings" actually have much value with a UPS. As a result, their specs are a little harder to understand. Most however are happy to answer questions if one asks. Have you asked?

Just try to find a verifiable case of the warrantee ever paying off to a non-corporate user. It's hype and that's about all it is. I tried to take advantage of the warrany once; and gave up after four rounds of crap; it quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns for most people in pursuing it.

Then you're either myopic, purposely not looking, or are looking in non North American Markets. Since you say "UL" then I assume you mean the U.S. market. It is illegal to sell any such product in the US without those ratings, and some states like Ca. even have their own added requirements above and beyond those. UL & CSA markings are required in NA, and acceptable substitutes (actually more onerous specs) are ETL and any EU safety marking. Most are marked with so many safety markings you actually have to look to see if a particular one if there or if it's there by MUA.
Your credibility is in serious question; please refrain from such future responses as you are obviously ill equipped to do so.
Twayne

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

A couple times in the past I have looked. I looked again with the following results:
Belkin F6H375 and F6H550-USB     700J     IEC standards only
F6C550-AVR     890 Joules I did not see Joule ratings for F6C750-AVR, F6B750-AVR, F6C900-UNV for this set the safety standards were     IEEE C62.41 Category A     and UL - not specific for which standard is covered
APC BE350R     365J     "meets UL 1449", UL 1778, UL 497A, UL 498 BE750G     365J     "meets UL 1449", UL 1778 BP500CLR     420J     "meets UL 1449", UL 1778 BP700UC     510J     "meets UL 1449", UL 1778 BR1300LCD     340J     "meets UL 1449", NOM, TUV    
Joule ratings ------------------------------------ I would not call anything under 500J "high". That leaves 2 Belkins and 1 APC. None were as high as the 1770J plug-in suppressor I bought. A number of the Belkin units did not have a Joule (or surge amp) rating. (IMHO manufacturers used to provide much better specs.)
Safety certifications --------------------------- UL497A is telephone protector UL498 is plugs & receptacles UL1778 is UPSs UL1449 is surge suppressors IEEE C62.41 - standards for surge testing but would be, at best, "self certification" IEC - European certifications have no validity in the US TUV may be recognized as a testing laboratory but no indication of what tests it performed
"meets 1449" to me means the manufacturer is claiming the UPS will pass UL1449. That is not the same as "listed under UL1449" which means the device has been tested by UL, with on site followup.
IMHO none of these UPSs is "listed under UL1449". None of the UPSs I have looked at in stores has had a UL1449 listing. The closest was "meets UL1449".
Better ratings may certainly be available. It would be nice if manufacturers made it easy to find them. These are UPSs that would likely be used in a home. .

In rather extensive reading I have never heard of ringing or resonance in suppressors.
You really dont want suppression in 2 connected plug-in suppressors. You have little idea which suppressor will actually clamp at a lower voltage. And if equipment is plugged into both and the UPS is doing the actual clamping, there will be a voltage drop between the plug-in and UPS. That will appear as a voltage between equipment plugged into both. .

I was careful to say "a UPS with low or no rating". .

I also carefully said "the kind of UPS commonly used", which connects the protected equipment to the incoming line until there is a problem. Full time conversion UPSs are certainly available, but not likely to be used by a home user (or most offices). .

The question is irrelevant because what I said excluded full time conversion UPSs. (And they are not likely to be used in a home.) .

Never had to try to claim damage. Manufacturers are reasonable to want a solid basis that equipment was not protected. People may think damage was from a "surge" when it is not. Then there is fraud. Would seem like companies would get a bad rating with the Better Business Bureau if they did not pay off valid claims. .

1. I am specifically talking about the US.
2. I know of no requirement that only "listed" equipment be sold.
3. Some "nationally recognized testing laboratories" (ETL) are likely allowed in most jurisdictions. "EU" is not one of them. The only detail I have read is for OSHA: NRTLs test to established standards, most of them from UL. A NRTL has to be qualified to test under specific standards.
4. Myopic? None of the UPSs I looked at above was "UL listed". .

You appear to be ill equipped to read what I actually wrote. And perhaps you could show "UL listed" UPSs are commonly available.
--
bud--

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

UL1449 means a surge protector circuit should not kill humans. To achieve a UL1449 approval, a protector circuit can even completely fail during testing - provide no protection - and still be UL1449 approved. UL makes no effort to claim surge protectors work. UL's concern is human safety. UL1449 does not mean a protector provides protection.
A UPS that does not have surge protection circuits obviously would not require UL1449 approval. Others automatically assume UPSes provide surge protection rather than first review numeric specs. UL1449 says a surge protection surge was tested to not burn down the house. UL1449 says the protector did not threaten human life when tested using C62.41 testing waveforms. However some electrical events may still create safety risks in some UL approved protectors (manufactured for profits rather than protection): 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 /
If it contains surge protector circuits, then it would have UL1449 that says those circuits should not threaten human life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

There are multiple tests to pass UL1449. One of the early ones is a series of 20 surges. The suppressor can not fail during that test.
The suppressor can fail later. For example when subjected to long overvoltage a suppressor can fail safely. (MOVs are good at very high currents for very short duration (surge) but not long duration.)
Contrary to w_'s delusions, UL1449 includes tests to assure suppressors (both plug-in and service panel) have protection functionality. .

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that 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. No link even says any failed suppressor was UL listed.
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Still never seen - answers to embarrassing questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? Why does the IEEE guide say (for long phone entrance ground) "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
--
bud--

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

A protector must remain functional during preliminary testing so that the relevant test can occur. Relevant test is a real surge the test that might expose a human threat. During real surge testing, a grossly undersized protector can completely fail - provide no protection and still be UL1449 approved.
Whether a protector provides protection is irrelevant. Bud hopes that facts gets forgotten to imply UL1449 means surge protection. UL1449 only implies a surge protector circuit exist. It says nothing about protection. UL1449 approval need not exist if protector circuits (that can create fires) do not exist.
Scary pictures are a problem with protectors that even meet UL1449 standards. Protector with UL1449 approval, sold to maximize profits, need not provide protection. It can completely fail provide no protection as long as it does not spit flames during ANSI C62.41 test waveforms.
Bud refuses to answers the only relevant question. WHERE DOES A PLUG-IN PROTECTOR CLAIM PROTECTION IN NUMERIC SPECS? Bud cannot answer because no plug-in protector claims protection from typically destructive surges. Bud discusses UL1449 hoping you assume UL1449 says protection exists; hoping you ignore fire risks. Protector can completely fail even during UL1449 testing and still be approved. Any appliance without protector circuits does not need UL1449 approval.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Poor w_ just ignores what does not fit his rant. Repeating "One of the early [tests] is a series of 20 surges. The suppressor can not fail during that test." .

Not since the 1998 revision - as w_s own handford link said. And still missing - a link that says a damaged suppressor even had a a UL label. .

Provided often and ignored by w_. For instance about 2 months ago in this newstgroup. http://tinyurl.com/6alnza
w_ refuses to answer simple questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? Why does the IEEE guide say (for long phone entrance ground) "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
And still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work. Gee, maybe nobody in the known universe agrees with w_.
--
bud--

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

Like any dictator, if Bud says the same lie repeatedly, then some will believe him. Since so many do, then those same people also beleived Saddam had WMDs. Many will blindly believe rather than also demand the 'whys'. Bud's own citations provides those whys: how a plug-in protector might work AND what happens when the 'whole house' protector was not installed. Page 42 Figure 8 - the surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV by a plug-in protector. Bud does not dispute this. Bud cannot dispute Page 42 Figure 8. So Bud spins how plug-in protectors work. Yeph. Plug-in protectors also can earth surges - 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances. No problem. That power strip protector provided massive profits.
Where is that manufacturer numeric spec that claims protection? Bud will not provide those numbers. No plug-in manufacturer claims to provide protection from the typically destructive surge. Even Page 42 Figure 8 shows why. Bud will post insult to avoid that reality because because NO PLUG-IN PROTECTOR CLAIMS SUCH PROTECTION. Bud is not promoting surge protection. Bud is promoting profit protection. Bud will not even admit who he is paid to promote. Honesty is not Bud. Posting insults is Bud.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the corresponding lack of supporting sources.
*Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_* that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
And still never seen - answers to embarrassing questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? Why does the IEEE guide say (for long phone entrance ground) "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
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

Every Bud citation says why plug-in protectors are ineffective. Each says the typically destructive surge must be earthed. Page 42 Figure 8 even shows how a protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground can earth a surge *8000 volts destructively* through an adjacent TV. Bud calls that effective protection.
However if Buds sales promoted protectors were effective, then Bud would provide manufacturer spec numbers that list each protection. Bud refuses to provide the only relevant numbers. No plug-in protector can claim to provide that protection. Every Bud citation says why. From Buds NIST citation:

Protectors promoted by Bud are defined by the NIST as useless.
Nothing new here. Earthing protection has been a telco standard for over 100 years. Responsible facilities don't use Bud's 'easiest' solution. All put protectors as close as practicable to earth ground. All create a single point earth ground; what provides the surge protection. Reliable facilities dont use effective protection; not obscenely overprices products that Bud promotes.
Bud is not selling earth ground. Bud is promoting a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for obscene profits: $25 or $150. The $10 grocery store protector also is his protector circuit. Admitting this would put profits at risk. Every Bud citation says why plug-in protectors are ineffective. Quoted above is the standard Bud myth. Bud refuses to provide any manufacturer spec numbers. Honesty is not Bud. Profits are at risk. Where is that manufacturer spec for protection? Does not exist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Still never explained: - 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 IEEE guide say (for long phone entrance ground) "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
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

Even Bud's own IEEE and NIST citations state why plug-in protectors are "useless" (from the NIST) or can earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud could stop posting incessantly if he just provided a manufacturer spec number for surge protection. He refuses. Bud cannot provide technical specs when no plug-in manufacturer claims to provide protection. So Bud insults, posts incessantly, and makes irrelevant claims. But is a sale promoter for plug-in protectors. He must post anything to confuse reality. Bud even refuses to provide those plug-in protector specs. Bud cannot provide what no manufacturer will claim. No plug-in manufacturer claims any protection from the typically destructive surge. The effective protector has that earthing connection diverts surges harmlessly in earth. Who said that? Buds citation says completely different what Bud posts. But then profits are at risk. Honesty is not Bud. Posting insults is Bud.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Provided and ignored, as usual.
w_ could stop posting incessantly if he just provided answers to simple questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? Why does the IEEE guide say (for long phone entrance ground) "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"? Why dont you ever answer questions w__?
And still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
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

As Bud admits, a protector can fail during the major surge test (the relevant test) and still get UL1449 approval. Yes, the protector must pass inspections and other trivial tests because it must still be the working protector when tested by a serious surge. When tested by a serious surge, the protector can completely fail - do zero surge protection - and still get UL1449 approval. Bud will even insult to avoid this reality.
Bud is a sales promoter - trained to twist words to confuse others. The protector can completely fail when tested by a serious surge and still be UL1449 approved. Why does Bud dispute this? Bud needs you to believe UL1449 defines an effective protector. UL1449 says it should not burn down the house - but it might.
Scary pictures are what happen to protectors that even meet UL1449 approval. UL1449 has existed since 28 Aug 1985. Bud would have you believe protectors in 2000 and 2007 did not have UL1449 approval. UL1449 is not a guarantee. UL1449 says a protector could be confronted by a major surge, completely fail (provide no protection), but did not spit flames. Bud will even insult to avoid reality of protectors so often located on a rug or in a pile of papers. These protectors met UL1449. In one citation, the NC Fire Marshal says why UL1449 approved protectors still create fires. Most every fire company has seen something equivalent. Bud - whose objective is to protect obscene profits - will say anything to disparage 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 http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
In another picture, MOVs (protector components) were removed. Indicator said that protector was good. Of course a protector without its MOVs is defective. But people like Bud fear you might learn another fact. Indicator light can only report one type of failure that exists when a plug-in protector is typically grossly undersized.
Another fact that Bud refuses to provide: a manufacturer spec for protection. Plug-in protector manufacturers do not claim protection that Bud hypes. Bud will never provide protection numbers because NO PLUG-IN PROTECTOR CLAIMS SUCH PROTECTION. Bud is not honest. Bud is a sales promoter who will not even admit who he promotes for.
Every Bud citation says why plug-in protector might work AND why plug- in protector can contribute to damage of adjacent appliances. Every Bud source and maybe 50 provided by this author state that earth provides that protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Plug-in protector don't claim such protection as every Bud citation states. And then are those scary pictures that most every fire company have seen and that only a sales promoter would deny. Profits are at risk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's good, except: A UPS certainly does still need UL1449 or an equivalent rating/testing/certification/registration/qualification. In fact, in Ca, the state adds its own safety specs, especially Orange County. It is illegal to sell a UPS without safety complaince in the US and Canada, whether it's UL, CSA, MUA, ECL, ET, CT or whatever.
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.