Does as GFCI give you some surge protection?

Hi,

GFCI's have some surge protection built in to protect them from surges in house wiring. Does this same surge protection extend a bit to protect what is pluged into a GFCI? I guess this may be a dumb question in that I know that there are surge supression receptacles out there, but those ones cost about 2.5 times a GFCI receptacle. Can I get a "cheap" surge supressor in installing a GFCI?

Best, mMike.

Reply to
sacstinkytiger
Loading thread data ...

No. If you have something that needs surge protection and it is worth the cost, get really good point protection.

I would suggest that you may want to consider whole house surge protection as well. It can give good, if not great, protection to every device in your home. Important sensitive devices should still have their own point source protection.

Reply to
Joseph Meehan

Hi, Maybe. Surge may trip the breaker.

Reply to
Tony Hwang

imho:

I had a few computers die on me, they were old, but taught me a lession. I had to tackle my voltage spikes a few ways.

  1. Surge surpressor in the panel. Medium cost.
  2. Ensuring proper panel grounding. Few bucks.
  3. Point of use surge surpressors. low cost.

With all three, I've not had a killed another computer or electronic applicance. So, what can you get from my experience? Tackle each problem head on, don't be cheap and try and get a secondary benifit from another safty device. Good luck.

tom @

formatting link

Reply to
Just Joshin

#3 is not necessarily "low-cost." The el-cheapo surge protectors use MOVs to clamp the spikes. Problem is, these MOVs, which act like fuses in reverse, only work once (or a few times). After that, you're unprotected with no indication of the possible peril. Better is a moderately-priced surge protector, ~$50, that has sopisticated electronics instead of MOVs.

Look for the ones that guarantee to protect attached loads.

Reply to
HeyBub

Hi Everyone,

Thank you very much for all your kind suggestions. I think I will get myself some Point Surge Protectors. I already have a Lightning system (big copper wires and Franklin Rods), and Surge Arrestors on the Power panels.

The ones I was thining of getting were the Leviton 8280-W Duplex Decora Surge Receptacles. They are I think designed for Hospital use and had an alarm to tell you when they no longer protect. I think there is a cap on E-bay selling them for about $US 18-20 each.

Thank you again for your kind help.

Warmest regards, Mike.

Reply to
sacstinkytiger

According to the IEEE guide, "the vast majority (>90%) of both hard-wired and plug-in protectors use MOVs to perform the voltage-limiting function. In most AC protectors, they are the only significant voltage limiters."

MOVs are intrinsically all voltage clamps - when the voltage rises over a characteristic voltage the MOV conducts to try to keep the voltage at that level. They are like back-to?back Zenier diodes. MOVs don?t protect by absorbing energy, but they absorb energy in the process of protecting.

A single MOV will have an energy (Joule) rating, say 5000J for argument. If the MOV takes a single hit of 5000J the voltage at which it conducts will decrease by 10% and the MOV is considered to be at end of life. (It will still work, but as it takes more hits the voltage at which it starts to conduct will progressively get lower.) As the energy hit per event goes down, the cumulative total energy the MOV can dissipate goes up. At 5000J per hit the cumulative dissipation is 5000J At 1500J per hit the cumulative dissipation might be 13,000J. At 200J per hit the cumulative dissipation might be 200,000J. Buying a suppressor with a high energy rating gives a much longer life than would be anticipated. With a very high rating, it is not likely a plug-in suppressor will ever ?wear out?. I believe that is why some of these high energy rating suppressors have a lifetime guarantee on the suppressor. They are also likely to have a guarantee for protected loads. Any decently rated plug-in suppressor will work far more than ?a few times?.

MOVs are likely to fail by the conduction voltage decreasing until the MOV conducts on normal power and goes into thermal runaway. Since 1998 the UL standard has required MOVs to be disconnected when they overheat. The IEEE guide spends quite a bit of space differentiating between plug?in suppressors that connect the protected load across the MOV, so it will be disconnected with the MOV - or connecting the protected load so it stays live when MOVs are disconnected. In the first case, you will certainly be aware of ?possible peril?, and I would recommend it. Far as I know all suppressors have indicator lights that indicate they are functioning.

François Martzloff , who was the author of the NIST guide on surges, says that overvoltage is the most frequent cause of failure of surge protectors.

The IEEE guide cautions against comparing suppressors based on energy rating because there is no standard its measurement. High energy ratings, however, indicate long life. The IEEE guide gives recommendations for surge current rating.

The 3 points of JustJoshing are the same as the IEEE guide. A 4th point is a single point ground - where the entry protectors for cable, phone, dish,... are near the power service panel and connect by short wire to the earthing wire at the power panel. Not having a short connection causes the problems discussed in another post.

-- bud--

Reply to
Bud--

The guaranteed is so chock full of exceptions as to not be honored. One APC guarantee even say protectors also from any other manufacturer void the guarantee. This has been demosntrated by testimoney elsewhere and repeatedly.

Protectors, including ones that Bud recommends, use MOVs. When typically undersized, then the naive think a protector did something. One never read manufacturer datasheets; instead promote the myth he heard: MOVs act like fuses. Such reasoning is called 'junk science'. When a protector is undersized as fails catastrophically, then protection already inside the appliance saves that appliance. When undersized, sometimes these scary pictures occur:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Little difference between a grocery store protector or one with expensive paint sold for $100+ in Circuit City and Best Buy. They are same protectors; use same circuits.

Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 protector parts. Sell it for $20 or $100. Notice why Bud posts incessently? Plug-in protectors are so grossly profitable that promoting myths is essential - customer is only a mark.

Bud has just posted:

Minor point: failure is created by overcurrent which is why surges are rated by their current; not voltage. Bud forgets to mention: Martzloff also says the adjacent plug-in protector can even contribute to appliance damage. Conclusion from that Martzloff IEEE paper:

Martzloff discusses how plug-in protecotrs can create damage "even when or perhaps because" a plug-in protector is present. Why sufficient size it? Its not there for protection. But if undersized

- if it only works once, then people such as HeyBub will promote junk science myths.

Effective protector shunts even lightning strikes to earth - and remains functions. Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors costs tens of times less money.

Responsible organizations, manufatures and industry authors (that even Bud quotes) define protection not in guarantees and not in the protector's price. Protection is defined by its earthing. Again Martzloff:

That is a 'whole house' protector or hardwire that connect Cable TV wire 'less than 10 feet' to earth ground (not protector required).

Bud claimed a protector absorbs the surge. Reality - 500 joule protector shunts maybe 5,000 or 10,000 joule surges elsewhere and remains functional. They don't protect by absorbing. They shunt. Joules measures the life expectancy of a protector. It says little about how much energy is shunted elswhere. Like high tension power wires, the MOV conducts current elsewhere as long as that current is not too great or too long. Something new from Bud: he is finally admitting this.

Protectors - power strip, UPS, and 'whole house' - all feature MOVs. How do you know? Look at its numeric specifications. When selling a scam - the plug-in protector - then installing too few joules gets the naive to promote them as HeyBub demonstrates. Why do many not understand the 'whole house' protector? One reason: 'whole house' protectors are properly sized. They shunt direct lightning strikes to earth AND remain functional. They must not vaporize. Naive would never realize how often protection was provided because the 'whole house' protector does not create those scary pictures - is not so grossly undersized.

Bud hopes you don't read and comprehend all 62 pages in his citation. Visit Adobe page 42 (paper page 33) in Bud's citation:

formatting link
Figure 8 is a TV damaged by 8000 volts because the MOVs (a power strip protector or UPS) were too close to appliances and too far from eathing.

Protectors use MOVs. Protectors promoted only for higher profits are undersized - ie those above scary pictures. Yes, MOVs degrade - and must not vaporize. As Bud now admits, a protector degrades when its voltage changes by 10%. It degrades - remains functional - must not be so grossly undersized as to smoke, vaporize, or catastrophically fail - those scary pictures. But failures including those in scary pictures are how expensive and ineffective plug-in protectors are promoted to the naive.

A protector does what? Even the IEEE says what is THE protection - earth ground: IEEE Green Book (Standard 142) 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' :

IEEE Red Book (Standard 141):

Why ground? Because earth is the protection. Effective protector shunts (diverts, clamps, connects) a surge to earth. A protector does not stop what 3 miles of sky could not. And yet that is what a plug- in protector, without earthing, must do ... in direct violation of an IEEE recommendation. IEEE recommendations are only in Standards. Even Martzloff says a plug-in protector can even contribute to appliance damage - as this author saw when studying damage and by performing autopsies of the destruction many decades ago.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Guarantee is simply another myth to promote ineffective protectors. How to avoid those scary pictures? Don't use ineffective protectors - ie not dedicated earthing wire. Install and earth one 'whole house' protector. How to make surge protection even better? Enhance that earthing system. Earthing - not the protector - is protection. Earth (not a protector) is where a surge gets absorbed - as noted above by Martzloff, IEEE, and MOV manufacturer datasheets. Who denies this? Promoters of ineffective plug-in protectors who may also deny the scary pictures.

A protector sold in a grocery store does same thing as one with the mythical guarantee and excessive dollar price. No 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth? It may even contribute to damage of the adjacent appliance as Figure 8 page 42 from Bud's own citation demonstrates.

Reply to
w_tom

Remember what a citation from Bud shows on page 43 Figure 8:

formatting link
Adjacent TV destroyed by 8000 volts because a plug-in protector was too close AND because earthing was not properly installed.

Nothing in your last post says you had any surge protection. Protection requires and is defined by earthing that meets and exceed post 1990 code. Protectors in a breaker box means nothing. One million dollars of protectors in the breaker box and earthing that is too far away means no protection. Your post confuses 'surge arrestor' with protection. It (just like the point of use protector) is not and does not claim to be protection.

Each protection layer is only defined by one thing - earthing point. Above discusses secondary protection 'system' - 'whole house' protector that is 'less than 10 feet' to earth. Also inspect your primary protection 'system':

formatting link
Why do others not mention your primary protection 'system' - no profits. Learn from his citation - how plug-in protectors can damage the adjacent appliance in Figure 8. Also inspect what he will not discuss - your primary protection 'system'.

BTW, its alarm does not report when the protector has degraded. It reports when a surge has so excessively exceeded manufacturer specs as to vaporize - on the verge of fire - what also creates those scary pictures.

How are they made safer for hospitals? They disconnect from AC mains much faster - so that appliance is left to fend for itself. By disconnecting a protector as fast as possible - with the 'first whiff of a surge' - then scary pictures are avoided. Fortunately the appliance already has protection. But now a myth about protector providing protection has been promoted. If alarming, then either you have a fire or the protector cut out long before protection was needed. But again, that is what those scary picture are all about - protectors so grossly undersized as to provide no protection.

Reply to
w_tom

The only testimony provided by w_ was someone who didn?t connect a CATV connection through a suppressor. All wires must including power and CATV have to connect through a suppressor to provide protection. Denial was justified. But w_ cant figure out how plug-in suppressors work.

Under sized is a red herring. Suppressors are readily available with very high ratings.

The undersized red herring #2. And lacking any technical arguments w_ uses pathetic scare tactics again.

For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about "some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998.?

None of these links indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors shouldn't be used. The links do give info on how to use plug-in suppressors.

I only post to counter w_'s bulllcrap. And I can only quite w_ - "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

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 surge reference equalizer.?

A ?surge reference equalizer? is the multiport plug-in surge suppressor discussed elsewhere in this thread and described in both the IEEE and NIST guides.

And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug?in suppressors are effective.

Undersized red herring #3.

Statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide describes plug-in suppressors as working primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. But that violates w_?s religious belief in earthing. To protect his religious beliefs w_ distorts, misquotes and tries to discredit conflicting information.

w_ is an idiot. I said ?MOVs don?t protect by absorbing energy, but they absorb energy in the process of protecting.?

w_ just claimed I said protectors absorb the surge. Now I said they don?t. w_ is an idiot. I have never said protectors protect by absorbing energy. But with no technical arguments w_ must misquote and discredit.

formatting link
Figure 8 is a TV damaged by 8000 volts because the MOVs (a power strip

I do hope people will read and comprehend it. It is a description of how a multiport plug-in surge suppressor works. Because it violates his religious belief in earthing w_ can?t comprehend it. The IEEE guide, as well as the NIST guide, says plug-in suppressors are effective.

The red herring again #4

Yet another stupidity. I have always said degrading is a continuous process with end of life defined as 10% voltage change.

Repeating: ?You have to be really stupid to say the IEEE would release a guide to the general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards. And the IEEE guide, pdf page 4, makes it absolutely clear that the IEEE guide has been peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE. But w_ must deny the obvious to protect his religious belief in earthing.?

And multiport plug-in surge suppressors are a surge protection device in the IEEE Emerald Book "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment".

As the IEEE guide explains to anyone who can think, plug?in suppressors work primarily by clamping not earthing or stopping. The IEEE guide says plug?in suppressors are effective.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #3.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #4.

MOV manufacturer datasheets describe MOVs - they don?t talk about earthing.

Martzloff (paper above and NIST guide) and the IEEE (guide and Emerald book) say plug-in suppressors are effective.

There are 98,615,938 web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have are misquotes, distortions and w_?s opinions based religious beliefs.

-- bud--

Reply to
Bud--

Bud's job is to promote plug-in protectors. Therefore he will lie as necessary to sell more plug-in protectors. Those plug-in protectors don't even claim to provide protection from surges that typically do damage. Anyone can look at those numeric specs. No such claim because it does not provide that protection. Bud alsol never provides a spec sheet that says so. Meanwhile, his own citations describe how plug-in protectors will harm adjacent appliances.

IEEE does not recommend what Bud intentionally perverts. IEEE papers warn how his protectors can create damage. IEEE Standards make recommendations. Bud hopes you believe otherwise. Bud will not even requote those Standards because Standards are quite clear; why plug-in protectors are not effective protection: IEEE Red Book (Std 141) recommends protection:

Bud's products have no dedicated earthing connection - which is required for effective protectors. So Bud must deny this IEEE requirement - earthing.

No earth ground means no effective protection - as even IEEE notes. Bud's protectors are not used where damage must not occur - telephone switching stations, radio and TV stations, 911 emergency response centers, etc. Why do they not use plug-in protectors? They do not waste money on protectors that can even damage adjacent electronics. Bud's own citation Figure 8 shows how ungrounded protectors even destroys a TV. Page 42 (paper page 33) shows TVs being destroyed because of ineffective and so profitable plug-in protector. A kid attaches an Xbox to the TV. Just another path that an adjacent protector may use to damage TVs. The Xbox and TV complete a destructive path to earth - same problem shown in Figure 8.

Plug-in protectors include a 'disconnect the protector from AC mains' circuit so that scary pictures do not occur. Disconnect the protector; leave appliance to fend for itself. No problem. Real protection was already inside the appliance anyway. Adjacent protector was there to enrich the manufacturer.

Some claim protectors are 'one shot' devices or 'fuses'. Why? If plug-in protection stayed connected, then these scary pictures result-

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
to disconnect - blow out fast - so that fire is not an option and so that only appliance internal protecton does all the work. Then the naive will spend more money on 'magic boxes'. Profits - not protection - is the objetive..

Numerous professional sites describe what is necessary for protection - earth ground. One whole day of reading from professionals say what Bud hopes you never learn are listed in in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe"

formatting link
Bud claims his protector will stop what three miles of sky could not. He will post incessantly to deny reality - deny those scary pictures.

Bud must deny what his own citations and authors say hoping you will not understand their technical points. Martzloff, who Bud cites often, even says plug-in protectors can contribute to appliance damage

- a 1994 Martzloff paper:

Martzloff states in 1993 what is absolutely necessary for protection:

Bud is paid to promote myths and spins. Bud needs you to deny what provided protection - earthing. A protector either is a connecting device to earth ground OR is a scam that enriches Bud. Oh. He forgets to mention that part also? Telling half truths is how he operates. As a troll, he follows me everywhere 'cut and pasting' the company lies. He routinely will not quote what the IEEE demands for protection - earth ground. Spinning and lying is Bud's job.

Bud even misrepresents IEEE papers that warn about damage created by a plug-in protector. Bud hopes you don't understand how his protectors put those TVs at 8000 volts - destroy the TVs. Why? Surge found earth ground destructly via TVs because surge was not earthed when entering a building - no 'whole house' protector. Without a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth: No earth ground means no effective protection.

Reply to
w_tom

w_tom wrote: ..

...

This sure sounds like a personal issue. It seems that Bud has suggested some good ideas and supported them with references to accepted authorities like:

formatting link
What is the problem here? The accepted non-commercial references you have made don't seem to conflict with what Bud has written. They point out a different limited problem.

Reply to
Joseph Meehan

More of the same w_ bullcrap repeated.

Partly in response to Joseph (sorry about the length):

w_ believes surge protection is only possible through earthing. For example: ?Protection is defined by its earthing.? ?No earth ground means no effective protection.? ?Earthing - not the protector - is protection.? ?Earth ground is the protection.?

Plug-in surge suppressors do not have good earthing connections. So according to w_, plug-in suppressors cannot possibly work. Unfortunately the IEEE guide explains how they work - they clamp the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Because that is not earthing, it is not valid to w_. His belief in earthing is unchallengeable and constitute a religious view. w_ has never posted a link that says plug-in suppressors do NOT work. I have posted 2 very reputable links, the IEEE and NIST, that says plug-in suppressors do work. There are plenty more. (The IEEE link, incidentally, originally came from w_.)

w_ is evangelical in his belief and searches with google-groups for ?surge? so he can share his drivel on plug-in suppressors. This is at least the 3rd time I have seen w_?s surge drivel on this newsgroup.

Not having sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective w_ has to misquote, misconstrue and distort sources or try to discredit.

Among them is François Martzloff who was the surge guru at the NIST and has written a lot about surges and surge suppression. w_ takes quotes about earthing out of Martzloff papers where the same paper clearly says plug?in suppressors are effective. In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that says plug-in suppressors are effective.

On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ misconstrued the views of Arshad Mansoor 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 surge equalization type [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."

w_ takes quotes about earthing out of IEEE standards, but the IEEE clearly says plug-in suppressors work in the ?Emerald Book?, which is a standard, and the IEEE guide.

w_ has only his religious belief in earthing and apparently can?t process anything that conflicts with that view (see cognitive disonance).

Having no technical arguments w_ manufactures issues. And he frequently posts ?scary pictures? that his own sources say were for an old UL standard - those suppressors have not been sold for 9 years.

And anyone who disagrees with w_'s religious view must be discredited.

My only association with surge protectors is that I have two of them.

Two posts ago my views were wildly misconstrued

w_ argues for ?whole house protectors?. They are good, and are in both the IEEE and NIST guides, as is grounding and single point ground.

BUT THE *ONLY* QUESTION IS WHETHER PLUG-IN SUPPRESSORS ARE EFFECTIVE.

If anyone has doubts look at the IEEE guide at:

formatting link
the NIST guide at:
formatting link
are have excellent information on surges and surge protection in general.

And both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in surge protectors are effective.

Then find w_?s sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. There are none.

-- bud--

Reply to
Bud--

AMEN!

w_tom is what is commonly referred to as a "usenet kook". In the past, he has been chastised for posting advice that could easily have killed anyone who followed it. Do not believe ANYTHING this crackpot says.

Beware. nuff said.

CWM

Reply to
Charlie Morgan

Bud's NIST pamphlet page 6 states how protection is provided:

You tell me. Bud says plug-in protectors have no earth ground AND need no earthing because they 'clamp'. Yes they clamp - which is also called shunt, connect, bond, or divert. Divert to what? NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, etc say earth ground. So Bud plays fast and loose with terms to confuse all. How to divert a surge to earth ground? Clamp, bond, shunt, connect - all mean same. Bud denies this to spin confusion.

A surge diverted / clamped / shunted to another wire is simply another path, destructively, through same adjacent appliance. Curious. We engineers found same when damage was autopsied. We traced a surge through a plug-in protector, through destroyed computer ICs, and into earth. Why was computer damaged? Protector had no dedicated earthing. Surge was clamped / shunted to earth destructively through computer.

Martzloff warns of the same damage "even when or perhaps because" of plug-in protectors. Quoted are Martzloff's own words.

As Bud admits, his protectors have no dedicated earthing wire. As Bud's own citations and authors repeatedly state - earthing provides protection. You don't see a problem?

Return to another Bud citation from Mike Holt page 42 Figure 8. How does that TV end up at 8000 volts? A plug-in protector did not have sufficient earthing. Ground wire was too long - too much impedance. Therefore TV is damaged by 8000 volts. As Martzloff notes, an adjacent protector can even contribute to appliance damage. We engineers knew that a decade earlier - because we saw it by doing an engineering analysis.

Bud plays fast and loose with reality to promote plug-in protectors. Where is the problem? Bud's own citation says earthing is required. IEEE Standards repeatedly state earthing is required for protection. And Bud admits his own protectors do not earth.

Anything that a plug-in protector might accomplish is already inside the appliance. But what a protector must do is shunt / divert / bond / clamp the destructive type of surge to earth ground. Bud even admits his plug-in protectors do not connect to earth. Therefore Bud's recommendations are in direct conflict with his own citations - and the IEEE, and industry professionals, and what has been historically installed for protection even 70 years ago ... The conflict is obvious. Bud lies to promote his defective product line. Meanwhile no earth ground means no effective protection.

Which is it? Earthing is not required as Bud promotes? Or earthing provides the protection as NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, Polyphaser, ARRL, US Air Force, US Army, all telephone companies, commercial radio and TV stations, .... all demand earthing for protection. Why? Protector is only as good as earth ground - which Bud must deny for self serving reasons.

Reply to
w_tom

Same Charlie attacked another poster for only asked what DSL fiters do? Charlie. He asked whether it was a high pass or low pass filter. You replied, "yes". That was the entire technical reply in a post that mocked that poster. Nothing new in your behavior here.

Reply to
w_tom

Take a deep breath Tom. Relax and realize that maybe you don't really understand the whole picture. If needed take your meds.

Reply to
Joseph Meehan

DSL filters ARE low pass and high pass filters, asshat. My answer was 100% correct, unlike all of yours. Writing lengthy tirades sprinkled with improperly used technical terms to bullshit the unwary does not make what you say correct.

CWM

Reply to
Charlie Morgan

Joseph - earthing IS the protection. No way around reality. So important that earthing (and not a protector) is why munition igloos are directly struck - and munitions do not explode. Earthing is what makes telephone switching stations - connected to overhead wires - operate during every thunderstorm without damage. In each case, plug- in protectors are not used AND may even contribute to transistor damage.

Even the Air Force defines what is necessary for protection: US Air Force Instruction 32-1065 1 Oct 1998

Where are protectors located? As soon as practical where conductor enters the facility. That is a 'whole house' protector - not a useless plug-in device. Where does the Air Force require plug-in protectors? Never. Air Force does what telcos also do to not have surge damage. Install protectors with shot connection to earth.

What happens when a plug-in protector does not disconnect fast enough? Why must the protector circuit disconnect so fast and leave the appliance connected to AC mains? What happens when it does not abandon appliance protection fast enough?

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Proven solutions come from manufacturers that you know as responsible. GE, Square D, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, and Siemens. Why then would you recommend a sold by manufacturers such as Monster Cable? Why would you recommend a plug-in protector that will not even claim to provide such protection in spec sheets? Even Bud's own citations describe what is necessary for protection - earthing. But even admits his companies protectors do not earth. So where is the protection?

Either a surge is shunted (clamped, diverted) or it is absorbed. That's it. Two choices. Joe - you tell me. How does a plug-in protector absorb what 3 miles of sky could not? No wonder Bud's citations show plug-in protector destroying a TV at 8000 volts. But then engineers traced same destruction previously. I personally traced and replaced every IC in the surge path to make the network working again. Bud's plug-in protector earthed a surge, destructively, through computers. Plug-in protector can't divert to what it does not have - earthing. Tell us how Bud's 'magic box' will stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? It cannot shunt (clamp) to earth. So how does it absorb surges?

Do you really know this stuff? Good. Then post that 'whole picture' I somehow never learned over so many decades. Don't make unsupported claims as Bud does. If you have another 'whole picture', then post it.

Meanwhile what did Orange County FL do to fix repeated surge damage to emergency response facilities? Did they buy plug-in protectors? Of course not. More damage was not acceptable. Orange County fixed the protection; that means earthing:

formatting link
No earth ground means no effective protection. How many whole pictures do you need? A reality denied to sell plug-in devices such as Monster Cable's $100+ products (along with their $60 wire specially designed for speakers).

Reply to
w_tom

No, it is not THE protection it is one protection, but not the one in question.

Earthing or grounding is very important from the standpoint of human safety from an insulation failure, but we are talking about surge issues and protection of the equipment from a short, but very high voltage spike. That voltage is measured between the neutral and the power and does not involve the "ground" While under normal operation the ground and the neutral are the same potential, there are times they are different.

Sorry you can't seem to see or understand the difference.

Reply to
Joseph Meehan

HomeOwnersHub website 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.