Just had a thought about surge suppressors...

Does anyone make a plug in suppressor that has TWO coax connections? I just realized that I was considering running both cable and an antenna connection to each TV in my house, but all the surge strips that I have everything connected to only have connections for one coax (I guess they assumed that someone would have either cable or an antenna but not both...)

thanks,

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel
Loading thread data ...

I've seen them with 2 connections (4 F connectors), that may have been meant for use with satellite internet (separate rx and tx cables), but don't remember any brand names.

Reply to
Gary H

Seems like someone should make one....

There are supposed to be modular assemblies where you can add the elements necessary for what you have. (I have not seen them.)

A possible kludge would be to have a short coax on the suppressor "in" side to a cable entry ground block with the cable source connected to the other side of the ground block. Bolt another ground block to the 1st ground block and run the antenna through it. The voltage on the center conductor of the antenna is not limited when doing this.

Reply to
bud--

Why can't you put a separate supressor before the splitter for each circuit?

Reply to
professorpaul

I haven't seen one. You really should be doing your coax surge suppression at the point of entry for both your feeds. There are in-line F connector surge suppressers that install quite nicely at the ground block outside the house.

I had a couple cable modems blown up by nearby lightning strikes shortly after I moved here. I drove a new ground rod, connected a ground block to it with a short wire and installed the in-line suppressers at the ground block. Since this installation I've had plenty more nearby lightning strikes, but haven't lost any more cable modems or other equipment. I don't use any additional coax suppressers in the house either.

Reply to
Pete C.

On Thu 25 Sep 2008 04:35:03a, Pete C. told us...

An odd thing happened when we installed a coax suppressor. This was in a new home with a new Cox coax feed. Our cable modem worked fine, but we lost about half the cable stations from our cable box to TV. It was not a channel filter. Cox advised us to remove it, and all channels were back. I haven't tried another suppressor.

Reply to
Wayne Boatwright

Here is a nice Intermatic:

formatting link

If you dont need whole-house power surge protection:

formatting link
Or maybe an in-wall protector for coax:

formatting link

Reply to
RickH

I agree with the other poster in that coax surge protection should be done at point of entry to your home. Which would make my previous post for the Intermatic dedicated coax protector best, or if your coax comes in close to your mains panel just add the Intermatic whole-house surge unit. Best to stop the surge before it gets down the cable into the house.

Reply to
RickH

. The OP hopefully has ground blocks at point of entry.

If using a plug-in suppressor all wires going to a set of protected equipment should go through the plug-in suppressor. That includes cable. .

. Not clear if there was one originally, but the cable installer should have installed an entry ground block and connected it to the power earthing system.

Also not clear if you are doing it, but the cable entry 'ground' must connect to the power service earthing system. Best protection has the cable entry ground block connecting to the ground at the power service with a *short* wire. With a strong surge, the 'ground' at the house can rise thousands of volts above 'absolute' ground. To protect equipment connected to both power and cable, the power and cable grounds must rise together.

Reply to
bud--

Possibly the suppresser didn't have enough bandwidth to handle the higher frequency channels without too much loss? Been a long time since I worked for Cox in CT, so I'm not sure what they're up to these days. The two Leviton inline suppressers I used here (from Depot) on my cable feeds have not caused any issues with any of my cable channels.

Reply to
Pete C.

Nothing here was up to snuff when I got here (previous owner was a power line janitor). I have since replaced the crappy Stab-Loc panel with a proper QO panel, installed two new ground rods (pounding them in did a number on my carpal tunnel), installed ground blocks and the inline suppressers on the cable feeds. The ground blocks are connected to the first ground rod with a 1' long jumper so the grounds are about as close together as possible. I also cleaned up the phone lines and upgraded/replaced the power feed and sub panel in the shop as well.

Reply to
Pete C.

I tend to err towards massive overkill when it comes to surge suppression. I do have a ground block at the entry point of the cable, bonded to the breaker box ground, and also a whole house surge suppressor at the panel. However, even with that in place, I still lost a circuit board in my dishwasher, a couple surge strips, and a power supply for my whole house air filter last year during a storm. (I've since added some small point of use surge protectors at several places throughout the house, although I'm not sure what I really could do about the dishwasher or other hardwired appliances like the stove.) There is no antenna currently installed, hence my question. I would certainly ground the antenna lead similarly to the cable should I install one, but I still am using surge strips with coax connections at both my cable box and my cable modem.

nate

Reply to
N8N

On Thu 25 Sep 2008 11:25:40a, Pete C. told us...

Thanks, Pete. Maybe I'll give it another go. I'll look for Leviton.

Reply to
Wayne Boatwright

Those "couplesurgestrips" did what no protector must do - failed. Undersized surge strips fail, gets the naive to recommend more, and can even create a potential fire problem. Most every fire department has seen this danger:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
or
formatting link
A surge found earth ground destructively via dishwasher, furnace filter, etc. What provides protection? Not any protector - whole house or power strip. Protection is the building earthing electrode. If that earthing electrode is insufficient, then a surge will find other paths to earth, destructively, inside the house.

Protection has always been to earth before surges can enter a building. That means a connection from each incoming wire to earth must be short (ie 'less than 10 feet'), no sharp bends, no splices, not inside metallic conduit, and all connection are to the same earthing electrode. What is critical for that wire connection to earth? Not wire diameter. More critical are shorter length, no sharp bends, etc.

For example, if a ground wire from breaker box to electrode goes up over the foundation and down to earth, then the wire is too long, is probably bundled with other non-ground wires, and has too many sharp bends. How a surge connects to earth determines whether the surge will stay outside a building. That breaker box wire must go through foundation and down to earth ground rod.

Reason for furnace filter and dishwasher damage is a surge that found a better (destructive) path to earth. No 'point of use' protector will avert that problem (as even its specs note). A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Apparently your earthing electrode (or connection to that electrode) is insufficient. Learn from what was damaged. 1) Upgrade your earthing or connections to that earthing. 2) Notice that the =93couplesurgestrip" was damaged; was grossly undersized; may have even been a fire threat.

Learn from the damage. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Reply to
w_tom

Those protectors do not even claim to provide needed protection. Read its specs. It does not list protection from the typically destructive surge. Essential is that cable make a short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to the same earth ground electrode used by everything else. And that the earthing electrode is a best earth ground on the property. Cable companies routinely advise removing in- line surge protectors.

Second, any properly constructed protector does not fail during a surge. But failure does get the naive to recommend more ineffective protectors. Effective protection system means nobody knows a surge even existed; that no protector fails.

Third, to block surges, that in-line coax protector must stop or absorb the same frequencies that carry TV signals. How does it not block TV signals and yet block surges? Again, read its specs. It did not claim to provide that protection.

Reply to
w_tom

. Complete nonsense. .

. More complete nonsense. Get a suppressor rated for what you are using.

Reply to
bud--

. Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:

And one from the NIST at:

formatting link
Surprisingly w_ did not recommend a service panel suppressor. The are effective on equipment connected to just to power. Adding connections for phone and cable can be more complicated. .

. To w_, plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings. In fact high ratings are readily available.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. .

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. None of the links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label. .

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. In w_?s view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40). .

. For cable and phone entry protectors you want a short ground connection to the ground at the power service. You want to minimize the voltage between power and signal wires. The author of the NIST guide has written "the impedance of the grounding system to 'true earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system." .

. The statement of religious belief in earthing.

-_ bud--

Reply to
bud--

Where is the inline coax protector that claims to protect from typically destructive surges? Does not exist. Where are specs that make that claim? The only inline protector that claims to protect from typically destructive surges also need the short (ie 'less than

10 foot') connection to earth ground.

One industry benchmark for coax protectors is Polyphaser. Polyphaser application notes are an industry standard for surge protection. What do Polyphaser app notes discuss every time? Their protectors? Of course not. Polyphaser app notes are industry benchmarks for surge protection. Their app notes discuss what provides protection: earthing.

formatting link

Reply to
w_tom

Both citations state why plug-in protectors make no protection claims from typically destructive surges. Bud will never provide a manufacturer spec that claims such protection. Bud will ignore request for facts because Bud is a sales promoter of plug-in protectors. No plug-in protectors will provide numerical specs for protection.

The first citation demonstrates how a plug-in protector earths a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through an adjacent TV. That is effective protection? A surge not earthed before entering a building MUST find earth ground inside the building. That plug-in protection on Page 42 Figure 8: the surge is earthed 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. A protector without a short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to earth must earth that surge somewhere: 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

Second citation is just as blunt. Surge energy does not just disappear. A protector does not magically absorb that surge. Surge energy must be dissipated somewhere. Therefore the NIST says on page

6 (Adobe page 8 of 24):

Where does the effective protector divert surges? To earth ground. Same NIST guide is even blunter. On page 17 (Adobe page 19 of 24):

Either surge energy gets dissipated (absorbed) harmlessly by earth OR that surge is diverted (8000 volts destructively) through adjacent appliances. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. NIST, IEEE, and other professional organizations make that statement repeatedly in guides and in Standards.

Will Bud's tiny protector absorb a surge? Of course not. Even the cable company recommended removing ineffective (and massively profitable) plug-in protectors. An effective protector absorbs almost no energy while diverting massive surge energy into earth. Why does one effective 'whole house' protector remain functional after direct lightning strikes AND protect everything inside the building? Effective protection also costs tens or 100 times less money.

Essential to surge protection is the quality of earth ground. An example demonstrates the concept: A FL couple had an exterior bathroom wall struck repeatedly. Lightning rods were installed and connected to eight foot earthing rods. Lightning again struck the bathroom wall. Why? Lightning took the better connection to earth. Bathroom pipes connected to deeper, more conductive limestone. Lightning rods were only earthed in sand. Another example of why protection is only as effective as the earthing. The surge found the better path to earth via bathroom pipes =96 not via eight foot ground rods.

Any surge will seek a best connection to earthborne charges located miles away. Any utility wire surge that finds a best path to earth before entering a building need not enter that building. Where surge damage occurs (ie a nuclear hardened maritime radio station), the informed professional learned from the damage and corrected a defective earthing system: "Reliable Protection of Electronics Against Lightning: Some Practical Applications" by van der Laan and van Deursen on 4 Nov 1998.

Where does surge energy get dissipated? Destructively inside a building? Will a protector rated at a trivial hundred or thousand joules dissipate hundreds of thousands of joules? Of course not. Will an in-line coax protector stop what three miles of sky could not? Obviously not. More reasons why surges must be dissipated in earth. OP's solution means single point earth ground, coax wire properly earthed by a ground block, and a 'whole house' protector on incoming AC wires. That's what professionals recommend, what those two citations demonstrate, and what a plug-in protector sales promoter will not recommend.

Reply to
w_tom

. Provided often and ignored. For example a few months ago on this newsgroup when w_ posted his drivel.

formatting link

. 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.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him. .

. If poor w_ could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE guide says in this example:

- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.

- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the power service ground that is too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

- w_'s favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection.

It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example damages the second TV.

But with no valid technical arguments, w_ tries to twist what the IEEE guide says. .

. What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are the "easiest solution".

With no valid technical arguments, w_ tries to twist what the NIST guide says. .

. The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. .

. Of course not. No one talks about absorbing surges except w_. The IEEE guide explains, for those who can think, that plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping. .

. A service panel suppressor is 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."

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 says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.

Never answered - 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"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug?in] protector"?

Reply to
bud--

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.