Electrical Short...

Who knows? By posting this, it might be that I get to save a life or two somewhere down the road...

Awhile back, I bought one of those *trendy* steel-wire bookcases for my bedroom office. On one shelf, I set up my monitor so that I could use it from bed (bad back). While on the bottom shelf, I put the computer itself, along with the surge-protector...

I felt reasonably assured that I had enough insulation -- as both computer and monitor have fairly *beefy* plastic bases. As it turns out though, I should have been a little more concerned!

Yesterday, just as I was leaving to go to a job, my SO called me back and asked if I knew anything about a strange odor coming from the back bedroom. The odor, as I soon found out, was smoke. Apparently,the surge-protector shorted against the wire shelving -- and in doing so sparked off a small electrical fire!

The wife and I are feeling pretty darned fortunate today -- all we've lost is a printer cable and a surge-protector. And yet, I feel slightly embarrassed (and a little guilty) whenever I look over at this big black spot that we now have on the carpet. I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER!

Still, I suppose if pride is all I'm down, then I should consider myself blessed -- as it?s a small price to pay for such an invaluable lesson. The moral being that perhaps having my electronics sitting directly on a metal shelf is not such a good idea. ; - ))

Reply to
Kewless
Loading thread data ...

That has nothing whatsoever to do with your behaviour, and everything to do with faulty gear. Anything that could short against the wire shelf could also short against your skin.

I wouldn't worry about metal shelving any more because of this...get a new surge protector from a different company. (In any case, whole-house surge protectors are much more effective than the power-bar type, as they are much closer to the primary electrical ground.)

Chris

Reply to
Chris Friesen

This is a joke of some sort. I don't get it, but it is too silly to be true.

Reply to
Toller

all sorts of wierd things can and do happen, having seen some myself...

not a troll, just a near disaster

Reply to
hallerb

You are not the only one who has experienced such problems with plug- in protectors:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Better is a simple $4 power strip with that all so important 15 amp circuit breaker. Short would have only tripped the breaker - would not contain internal components mislocated where fire is a threat; such as in those above pictures.

Reply to
w_tom

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

There is no indication in the original post what caused the problem.

-- bud--

Reply to
Bud--

Not really.

You should contact the surge manufacture and tell them what happened. If they don't stand behind there product then you should not be buying anything made by them.

Reply to
Bob

Yes, it's not clear how the surge protector "shorted" against the metal shelving. Something clearly had to be defective and sitting electronics on a metal shelf should not have anything to do with it.

Reply to
trader4

There is sooo much bullshit here....

Reply to
Noozer

Would that be before or after you entered this thread?

Reply to
me

True, you are assured of electrical ground...but you will not protect from induction on the same circuit (motor switching) as your electronics. Also, there is induction from wire to wire in the same run or conduit.

JM$.02

Reply to
pheeh.zero

Nope. It's true.

When I posted this I suspected that my experience was fairly uncommon. But I had no idea that it was so bizarre as to defy belief. Perhaps, I should have called the National Enquirer instead?

Reply to
Kewless

The first thing I did (after examining its charred remains) was to toss my surge-protector in the trash. It never occurred to me to take pictures. I wish I had...

Reply to
Kewless

I have no idea how old this thing was or even where I got it. It could be that it was pre' 98...

Reply to
Kewless

Yes, thank you.

Reply to
Kewless

I want to thank you ALL for your responses. As a whole they've gone a long way to help patch things up btwn me and the Mrs. [Although nothing's been said, I've been getting a lot of those *sideways* glances ever since this thing happened. It must be like that old adage: You can cut down a whole backyard full of trees and no one thinks you're a lumberjack. But have one little fire on a computer you set up........ ]

If I've learned anything, it's that next time something like this happens, it might be wise to do a little investigating BEFORE I rush to take the blame for something I may not even have done. Whether it's my fault or not is hard to say. But it does leave room for doubt...

Reply to
Kewless

According to Kewless :

Yup. It's a good idea to spend a little time trying to figure out _why_ this happened. Was anything cracked/chafed and shorted to the metal shelving (eg: electrical burn marks on the shelving), or did it look like the device itself burned out?

Calling someone with the make and model describing what happened is a good idea. Eg: consumer protection agencies, the store, and the manufacturer if you can identify/reach it.

Not as a complaint, but a warning. It's how safety recalls happen. Many stores/manufacturers really do want to find out about these. Before something a lot worse and more expensive happens.

Reply to
Chris Lewis

Bud is spinning myths again. He promotes plug-in protectors. The changes that Bud was talking about were implemented in the late 1980s after so many publications - including two mid-1980s PC Magazine articles - showed how frequently this problem would occur. In the meantime, even those scary pictures include protectors that are supposed to be even less likely to spit 'sparks and flames'.

It remains a dangerous problem which is another reason why we don't want protectors adjacent to flammable materials. Just another reason why a 'whole house' protector is preferred. Properly sized. Safely located. Costs tens of times less money per protected appliance. And is sold by manufacturers with far more responsible names such as Leviton, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Siemens, GE, and others.

If the power strip had shorted to rack, then its 15 amp circuit breaker would have tripped - no smoke; no sparks. Furthermore, if power strip shorted to metal rack, then incoming electricity is the power strip. What is an outgoing path back to breaker box? If no outgoing path through the rack, then short was not through that rack. Again, a more common problem even with UL1449 approval is:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Does your protector have UL1449 certification? Purchased after late

1980s - then it probably does. It met those protection standards and yet still did as other certified protectors sometimes do when grossly undersized, excessively profitable, and (by the way) don't even claim to provide protection from surges that actually harm electronics.

Undersized? Yes, it sell more protectors when it is damaged by a trivial surge. Effective protectors earth surges, are not damaged, and leave you completely unaware of how effective it really is. A protector that is not damaged - that does its job - does not get hyped recommendations by the naive. But when undersized, then those scary pictures happen more frequently.

More reasons why one properly earthed 'whole house' protector is the safer and superior solution compared to grossly undersized plug-in protectors all over the house.

Reply to
w_tom

I only promote accurate information. It is w_'w *belief* that plug-in suppressors can't work. Lacking technical arguments he resorts to pathetic scare tactics.

If w_ could only read and think he would know that HIS hanford link says overheating MOVs were fixed with a revised UL 1449 standard. From the hanford link: "Surge protection devices in some older model multi-outlet power strips can overheat and create a potential fire hazard."

Why does hanford say both "some" and "older"?

and: "Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL 1449, 2nd Edition, Standard For Safety For Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, now requires thermal protection in power strips. This protection is provided by a thermal fuse located next to the MOV."

If w_ knew anything about UL 1449 he would know the 2nd edition was in

1998 - 18 years after his PCMag articles and 9 years ago.

The scare tactic again. Obsolete by his own hanford link. The 2nd and 3rd link are the same. Zerosurge is a manufacturer with a competing surge protection scheme (which w_ says doesn't work). None of these links say there is any problem with suppressors under the current UL standard. None of them even says the problem units had a UL label.

Another really stupid statement.

Lacking technical arguments w_ also relies on "undersized" - a red herring. Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily available. And the surge expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology wrote "in fact, the major cause of TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge."

-- bud--

Reply to
Bud--

Bud spins subjective words into a wild speculation. "Some"? "Older"? Is that a technical answer?

If those 'scary picture' protectors did not meet UL1449 - a standard for 25 years, then why not cite that specific fact? Bud is so desperate to prove a point - to promote his product - as to cite "Some" and "Older" as definitive facts. Only a junk scientist would advance such rationalizations. Protectors that even meet UL1449 2nd edition create those scary pictures.

How does UL1449 2nd edition make 'scary pictures' less likely? Disconnect protector components faster. Abandon an adjacent appliance to the surge. Instead protect a power strip protector. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective. When was a protector's task to protect itself; not the appliance?

UL1449 says a protector need not even provide protection. A protector can completely fail during UL1449 testing - and still obtain UL1449 approval. UL does not care if protector disconnects so quickly as to provide zero protection. UL1449 only wants no 'sparks and flames' during smaller test waveforms.

Therein lies the tradeoff. Either claim to protect an appliance and suffer those scary pictures. Or disconnect MOVs (protector components) so fast that internal appliance protection protects that appliance. Latter condition indicated by a 'failure' light. As noted earlier, that 'failed' indicator is an unacceptable condition often associated with grossly undersized and overpriced plug-in protectors.

No effective protector fails quickly. But doing in plug-in protectors can achieve a UL1449 2nd edition approval - while protecting that excessively high profit margin.

Let's view that profit margin. Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $100 as a power strip protector. Make sure the protector components disconnect so quickly that it can obtain a UL1449 approval. IOW protect the protector - not appliances. No wonder plug-in protectors don't even claim to protect from the typically destructive type of surge. View it yourself. Where does it list protection from each type of surge? It does not. More important is to disconnect MOVs so that scary pictures occur less often.

'Whole house' protectors such as in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses (not sold in Sears, Wal-Mart, Circuit City, Radio Shack, Staples, etc) have that essential earthing wire AND remain functional after surges. An effective protector shunts a surge to earth, remains functional, and never lets a homeowner know that a surge even existed. Effective: remains functional as in not spitting 'sparks and flames'.

That power strip protector would not have shorted to closet rack. A short would have been eliminated by a 15 amp circuit breaker. But internal components may have spit 'sparks or flame' during a surge too small to overwhelm other household appliances. Just another problem with plug-in protectors. Plug-in protectors may fail during a surge so small that appliances were not harmed. Catastrophic failures are not acceptable from more responsible manufacturers. Protector inside a closet failed catastrophically during that same 'so trivial' surge? No wonder superior protectors are located where?

At the service entrance and not inside a closet of flammable clothes; not on a desktop of flammable papers; not behind furniture in dust balls on a rug. A superior 'whole house' protector also has what that closet protector would not - 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. Smoking protector inside a closet - just another example of why plug-in protectors are not effective protection.

Reply to
w_tom

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.