Whole house phoneline surge protection

Page 4 of 4  
TWayne wrote:

UL1449 was not found in the specs for 11 UPSs from 2 major brands (all of them I looked at). .
or an

What is equivalent to UL1449 that is acceptable in the US? .

What makes it illegal to sell a UPS without safety compliance? In a facility covered by OSHA you might not be allowed to use one.
--
bud--

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

You are confusing a UL safety standard for all electrical appliances with UL1449 that only applies to surge protectors.
Take a power strip as an example. All power strips must have a 15 amp circuit breaker or fuse to comply with UL's safety standards. But when the power strip also contains MOVs, then that power strip must also comply with UL1449. UL1449 does not apply to a basic power strip.
UL1449 standard was created on 28 Aug 1985. Other appliances have complied with other UL standards long before 1985. Appliance without surge protection circuits need not comply with UL1449. As posted previously:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 29, 11:16 pm, snipped-for-privacy@panix.com (David Combs) wrote:

Review and post that UPS numeric specifications. It does not claim to provide protection. It does protect from a type of surge that typically does not cause damage. Spec probably provides only one number - total number of joules.
That joules numbers says how tiny the protector circuit is and does not even say where those protector circuits are located. That protector circuit is something above zero. Sufficient to claim surge protection in color glossy brochures. But so near zero as to virtually not exist.
Again, your telco installs a 'whole house' telephone line protector for free. How good is this protector? How good and how close was earth ground that you provided? If that telco 'installed for free' protector is close (ie less than 10 feet) to the same earthing electrode used by AC electric, cable, and satellite dish, then some of the best phone line protection already exists.
What does any shunt mode protector do - that telco protector, MOV, Gas Discharge Tube (GDT)? http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm

What does an effective protection system have? A 'whole house' protector and a short connection to earth ground.
Protectors do not stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not stop. Ineffective protectors claim to absorb (stop) surges. Effective protectors clamp that surge energy harmlessly into earth.
A protector without a dedicated earthing connection (ie that UPS) will not divert (shunt, connect, clamp, conduct) energy. Surge energy may then find earth ground destructively via household appliances. The surge permitted inside a building finds and harms appliances that will earth that surge. Either a surge is earthed before entering the building ('whole house' protector or a hardwired connection), or that surge will seek earth ground destructively inside a building.
So again, what is claimed in UPS numeric specs. Do they list each type of surge and protection from that surge? Of do they just give a joules numbers (required by standards) and claim no protection? The effective protector has a dedicated wire for that short connection to earth.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Service panel suppressors 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 [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." .

I have only seen w_ talk about "stopping" or "absorbing".
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING (limiting) the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. .

A UPS may or may not have effective protection. High ratings are more readily available in plug-in suppressors. .

"Each type of surge" is nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That is all possible combinations and all possible surges.
Still missing - a source that agrees with him that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Still missing - 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
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny. That surge energy clamped on all wires goes where? Nowhere. According to Bud, that surge energy disappears because wires are clamped together. But then the IEEE guide Page 42 Figure 8 shows what happens when surge energy is not clamped to earth. That surge energy finds another path to earth - 8000 volts destructively - through the adjacent TV.
Bud once claimed surges were absorbed by plug-in protectors. That spin did not work. So now he does not make that claim.
As Bud notes, the UPS surge protector circuit is grossly undersized. Sufficient to claim surge protection on color glossy brochures. Too woefully undersized (near zero) to provide any real surge protection. However, UPS for surge protection is promoted to those who 'know without first learning'. Appreciate how many do this. Appreciate how many recommend a UPS for surge protection because they only read the color glossy brochure - and ignored numbers in the manufacturer's spec sheets.
Which protector by itself provides effective protection? Well, the complete protection system from any plug-in protector would be defined in its numeric spec sheets. Oh. No plug-in protector lists each type of surge and protection from that surge. Where is this protection? Manufacturer cannot claim protection when a connection to what provides protection - earth ground - does not exist. A protector is only as effective as what provides protection - what dissipated surge energy: earth ground. No dedicated earth connection means no effective protection. No wonder that plug-in protector does not claim protection in its numeric spec sheets.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The same place all that energy goes when you step on the brakes in your car. The MOV releases it as heat.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, it goes to ground. The speed of grounding depends on the quality of the ground, but that's where it ends up. (I know, I'm going to hear about "less than 10 feet" ground connections). Agreed. The lower the impedance of the ground, the better off you are, but it's not the absolute I get from reading your postings.
What you do accomplish by clamping all the wires together is limit the surge current within the protected device itself. If all wires are at (roughly) the same potential, there will be reduced opportunity for damaging current flows.
Can a plug-in surge protector provide absolute protection against all surges? Hell, no. Is it better than nothing? Hell, yes.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing was absolute. These posts discuss a 'daily tabloid' version. Conductivity of earth ground cannot be made sufficiently low. So we also earth (single point earth ground) to create equipotential. If major currents are conducted below the building (rather than inside a building), then increased voltages beneath that building are equalized. Even less currents obtain earth destructively via appliances when using better earthing techniques such as Ufer ground or halo ground. Both conductivity and equipotential is required because neither can be sufficient.
If not yet obvious, all appliances contain internal protection. Surge energy that (mostly) gets earthed means protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

w_ is fond of inventing what others say.
I repeat what the IEEE guide says. Repeating again: "The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40)" .

Another total invention. Must be the drugs.
Still missing - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Still missing - 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"? Why don’t you ever answer questions w_?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

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

Guide says that if the earthing (and 'whole house' protector) does not do that earthing elsewhere, then the plug-in protector can earth a surge even 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. Earthing must be done elsewhere - either by a 'whole house' protector or by a direct (hardwire) connection to earth.
Every source says a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A protector not intended for (does not even claim in numeric specs to protect from) the typically destructive surge - that protector may then earth that surge 8000 volts through the adjacent TV. Even Bud's citations demonstrate that reality.
Why does the telco install one 'whole house' protector on every subscriber line? Why does the telco install same protectors on every wire where every cable enters their building? Why does the telco not use plug-in protectors? An effective protector makes a short connection to earth ground as every source (including those from Bud) state. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A protector without earthing will clamp that surge energy to what? Maybe into the adjacent appliance - Page 42 Figure 8. That surge must find earth ground as Bud's NIST citation says. A plug-in protector simply gives surges more paths to find earth ground - destructively. Bud's citations demonstrate why the easiest solution can even contribute to appliance damage.
Of course Bud will reply with these same accusations again. Obscene profits on a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts selling for $25 or $150. These profits are at risk should you learn why a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Telco only installs 'whole house' type protectors both in their facilities and where their wire connects to subscriber homes. Why? Telco installs effective protectors - not scams promoted by Bud.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

The IEEE guide clearly explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing. It takes willful stupidity not to understand.
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"? Why don’t you ever answer questions w_?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% 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.