The usual bullshit from w_ on plug-in surge suppressors.
The best information I have seen on surges and surge protection is at
- the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the
IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers
in the US). (This link originally came from w_.)
A second god source is:
- this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency formerly
called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001
Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public to
explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was
targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background.
Common mode surges (H & N lift away from G) coming in on the power line
are converted to transverse mode surges (H lifts away from N & G) by the
N-G bond in US services.
Undersized is a "straw man". Plug-in protectors come in ratings from
junk to very high.
Both the IEEE guide and NIST guide recognize plug-in suppresors as
Amazing how religious beliefs about earth ground promote myths. The IEEE
guide clearly describes plug-in surge protectors as primarily CLAMPING
the voltage on all conductors to the common ground at the surge
suppressor. The clamped voltage is safe for connected equipment.
Earthing is secondary.
When you don't have technical arguments try pathetic scare tactics.
Includes guidelines for using plug-in suppressors
Those with minimal reading ability can read this 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.
This link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which w_ says doesn't work.
Same event as the first link above with pictures that don't work.
None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective or that they should not
be used or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.
Problem fixed in 1998.
The religious mantra again. Not shared by the IEEE of NIST.
Religious mantra #3. And the NIST and IEEE say plug-in suppressors are
Note "each type". Common mode surges do not come in past the N-G bond in
the service. Plug-in suppressors have clamps from H-N, H-G, N-G and
handle all modes anyway. And w_ has never provided specs for "each type
of transient" for any of his favorite suppressors. Yet another stupid
Religious mantra #4.
Bottom line - the IEEE and NIST recognize plug-in suppressors as effective.
Will a power strip protector somehow stops or block what three miles
of sky could not? That is not what a power strip protector does. And
yet that is why some daisy chain power strip protectors on a myth that
more will create a chain of protection - stop or block a surge.
Meanwhile, every power strip must have a 15 amp circuit breaker so
that excessive load does not concentrate on one power strip. Fires
have killed because power strips were daisy chained when, instead, the
solution was sufficient number of wall receptacles. Fire code in some
larger cities did not permit power strips - same reason. Safer than a
$25 surge protector power strip is the $3 power strip with an essential
15 amp circuit breaker. That circuit breaker to eliminate danger of
too many loads on one wall plug. But you must confirm that breaker
That breaker is not your primary safety device. Primary protection
is to not daisy chain power strips. That breaker is only a secondary
layer of protection. If you must daisy chain power strips, then the
room needs more wall receptacles.
Gee. I'm sorry. That whole kennel of dead dogs when the owner daisy
chained power strips ... well that fire did not really happen? Clearly
insults are now sufficient as technical proof? Lurkers are cautioned:
some will change their identity to post insults without basic technical
Meanwhile, reasons for not daisy chaining power strips are accurate
and include the reasons why. Responsible poster don't change their
identities to post personal attacks.
I ask again: Do you know what daisy chaining power strips means?
And can you cite even a single instance of your claim? Because you say so
doesn't make it so, anymore than it makes my e-mail address valid.
Oh, it probably happened, but not for the reasons you're citing and/or
making up. All I want is a cite; if I'm wrong I'm not afraid to admit it.
But logic tells me I am not wrong about your allegations. Your say so
doesn't make it so.
No, I wouldn't consider your insults of any kind of proof whatsoever. Or
anyone else's for that matter.
Well, where's the cite? Where is there any proof of your allegation?
Where can I find information to support ANY of your claims about the shock
Yes, there sure are reasons: but they are NOT the reasons YOU allege. Your
allegations are BS unless/until you can provide some supporting information.
You appear to be relying on uneducated assumptions, inuendo, misinformation
and egocntricity. Or, you're making it up for your own purposes. Just cite
Provide some backup information. It's certainly not recommended to daisy
chain, but for reasons other than you are claiming.
Hey, I can change my nick to whatever I wish to, and if you noticed, I'm
FWIW, I change my nick periodically; there's a definite purpose in it which
is far from what you're suggesting, or I'd also change my name from "Pop`"
to something else. A nick is a nick, and a liar is a liar.
An old Rush Limbaugh trick is to attack and accuse so that the others
will not notice the accuser has insufficient technical grasp. Pop'
who also pretends to be L Ectro denies obvious dangers from daisy
chaining power strips. Dangers that anyone with technical knowledge
has long since understood.
Danger from daisy chaining is common knowledge. Daisy chaining power
strip protectors (which was the original question) is even worse
because a plug-in protector does nothing useful while promoted as if it
will stop or absorb surges.
Another has suggested, using word phrasing, that Pop' may also have
posted here under a third name. Purpose? To deceive others. This
time Pop', whose ethics now have no problem posting as if different
people in a same discussion, Pop' got caught.
Meanwhile point-of-use surge suppressors are dangerous when daisy
chained, are undesireable as demonstrated in scary pictures:
and are not earthed with or without three wire (safety grounded) wall
Power strip without 'protector' components and with an essential 15
amp circuit breaker only should be used. Effective surge protection
(with two wire or three wire receptacles) is accomplished by a properly
earthed 'whole house' protector. Earthing defines that protection.
Okay. I always count total wattage/current before plugging stuff in,
even on a standard wall outlet. Main reason I like to daisy-chain surge
protectors is that the one closest to the outlet takes most of the small
hits and wears out the fastest, protecting the others so they can (1) stay
in use when I replace the closest one and (2) help a little on a somewhat-
Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire
department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire.
What the hell does daisy chaining power strips have to do with whether
or not plug in type surge protectors do help protect sensitive
equipment? W_Tom talks about going on the attack to divert attention
from technical issues, yet he's here spewing how daisy chaining power
strips and plugging in endless loads can cause a fire. Good grief!
It seems most of the world is in agreement. Whole house surge
protectors with a proper ground are an excellent idea, as they can
protect the whole house and stop a surge just as it enters the house.
And for those that can't install one, like those living in a rental
property or an apartment, plug in surge protectors are a good idea.
And they are a good idea even if you have a whole house protector. To
argue against it is like saying having a locked bank vault doesn't do
any good, cause the front door is already secure.
And old W Tom rants on about how appliances already have surge
protection built in. Well, which would you rather deal with? A
$2000 Plasma TV that took the hit and blew out the surge protection, or
a $25 surge protector that you can throw away?
Like most here, I've seen plug ins work and believe they are effective,
though not as preferable as a whole house unit. Another factor, many
of the plug ins also offer additonal protection for cable and phone
lines. W Tom, Before you go on a rant about how all that is
unecessary, read the part about the bank.
Did Trader4 bother to first read the question before spouting insults?
Funny that Trader4 would do what he falsely accuses others of doing.
But to make it easy for him, the question that he forgot to read before
attacking is reposted:
Trader4 - the question is "Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining
suppressor power strips?" Do you think, just once, you could
demonstrate some enough concentration to stay on topic? Surprise us
instead of spewing. Why not chain suppressor power strips?
Again, just so you don't forget the question:
No attack, just cogent comments, instead of rambling rants.
I didn't accuse you or anyone else of spouting insults,.
The obvious point, apparent in the above, is how you keep focusing on
"suppressor" power strips. As if endlessly daisy chaining
non-suppressor power strips and plugging in more extension cords
doesn't present safety issues. Or, for that matter, just using those
little cube taps to plug 20 extension cords into one outlet.
The only one that appears confused here is you Tom. Thanks for making
my point, which was that endlessly plugging in loads, whether using
surge protector power strips or other means, as happened above, is just
You seem to be the one confused or trying to mislead. The power strip
seems no more central than the row house itself or the christmas
decorations. The extension cord was "at the heart" of the fire, which
is why the article starts with "An extension cord overloaded..."
A powerstrip has a circuit breaker and its cord is protected by that
breaker. Obviously if you plug a powestrip (safe) into an extension
cord that is too small (not safe) you can have a problem, but so far
I've not seen anything inherant in power strips that would be a problem
"daisy-chained," and apparently neither have you.
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com
Verb correction. A power strip should have a circuit breaker....
There is no rule and no requirement that a breaker exists. Without a
breaker, it cannot get UL approval. But UL approval is not required.
In many fires, such as the local dog kennel that killed all dogs, at
least some power strips did not have the circuit breaker. You have
assumed all power strips have circuit breakers. I was just looking at
one today (from Archer - a Radio Shack product) that did not.
I'm not sure of the terminology but the wiring appears to be two-wire,
and not metal-clad.
I had the original 50-year-old service panel upgraded and a new ground
rod installed. The cable and phone service is (now) properly grounded
at the same point.
I think my current plan is to order a panel mounted protector like the
Intermatic one, then try to have one outlet per room grounded, for
point-of-use suppressors. Does that seem reasonable?
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.