lightning strikes

Which is why your telco stops all phone service when thunderstorms approach? Which is why all radio and TV stations disconnect from their antenna and power lines to protector equipment?

Routine is to have direct lightning strike with no damage. But that means installing solutions that costs less than the Belkin solution. That means installed what was even well proven 100 years ago. That means learning well proven technology that many today would rather mock than learn.

Surge that need not enter a building to find earth ground does not cause electronics (or light bulb) damage. Therefore your telco also never has computer damage and need not disconnect during storms.

Reply to
westom
Loading thread data ...

Broadband? What's that? I live in rural France. Lucky to have dial-up where I live!

Reply to
David in Normandy

I have a Belkin surge protector too. It came in handy during a storm last year. We had visitors and I got distracted from my usual routine of unplugging everything. I was mid conversation and WHACK, a loud cracking sound and the smell of burnt electronics. My computer was OK but the sound and smell originated from my Belkin surge protector. I guess that means it no longer protects anything?

I've heard of people here having white goods fail too such as fridge freezers during a storm. I'll stick by my disconnecting policy until a better and cheap solution becomes available.

In the mean time I guess I need a new Belkin?

Reply to
David in Normandy

Don't these Belkins have a lifetime warranty? I'm sure I read that Belkin will replace it free of charge together with any item it failed to protect.

L
Reply to
Lawrence

C-Block Goodricke has painted breeze-block walls to this day. (Well, it won't be Goodricke by next term, but it will still have the same walls)

You were all Jewish? Oh - Genteel! :P

Andy

Reply to
Andy Champ

I worked in the Electronics Dept at York '82 to '89 (and thereafter...) - I'm amazed I didn't hear of you doing this. I bet Matt Hill was involved?

J^n (Vanbrugh, in theory)

Reply to
jkn

For reliable information on surges and surge protection read a guide from the US-NIST at:

Or a more technical guide from the IEEE, a major association of electrical engineers:

The UK differs from the US in some details, like earthing, but the principles are the same.

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

Nonsense and nonsense.

And the IEEE guide explains, to anyone who can read and think, that plug-in suppressors work by clamping (limiting) the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work by stopping or absorbing. And they do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires.

With minimal reading and thinking ability poor w could learn that plug-in suppressors do not work by stopping or absorbing.

Yea - make sure your wiring conforms to the US-NEC.

Power entry protectors are a good idea. But from the NIST guide: "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."

A power entry protector does not limit high voltage between power and phone/cable wiring. The NIST guide suggests that is the major cause of damage.

But UK phone line entry protectors usually do not clamp the voltage to earth. Clamping to the main earthing terminal, as in Andrew's post, greatly improves protection for anything connected to both phone and power wires.

(And the NIST guide says equipment can be damaged by wiring acting as an antenna - such as alarm wiring.)

As Mike Tomlinson and others know, w is an internet nut that googles for "surge" to post his nonsense.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Then read w's sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective - oops, there aren't any.

And w has never answered simple 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 NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

Reply to
bud--

Surge confronted your computer and the Belkin simultaneously. Both suffered the same voltage. Protection inside the computer was more than sufficient. But the Belkin was so grossly undersized as to fail. That gets the naive to promote more sales.

Any protector that fails even during a direct lightning strike is grossly undersized =96 ineffective protection. Your surge was particularly small. And the Belkin was still damaged. No protection was provided by the Belkin. But smoke and damage gets many to promote these ineffective protectors.

The problems get worse with larger surges. Even with UL1449 2nd Edition, these scary pictures are seen by most every fire department:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Where is this protector that would stop and absorb surges? On a desktop with papers? ON a rug behind some furniture? Grossly undersized AND located where fire risk is highest?

A protector must earth a direct lightning strike and remain functional. Protectors that fail means the protector is not recommended. My only assume, "The protector sacrificed itself to save my computer". Reality. MOV manufacturers state that catastrophic type failures are unacceptable - must not occur - violate the Absolute Maximum Parameters.

For about $1 per protected appliance, a properly earthed 'whole house' protector would have even protected that Belkin protector and everything else in the house. And it would have remained functional. Effective protection means you do not even know a surge existed.

Reply to
westom

Try getting that warranty honored. One protector's fine print even stated using protectors from any other manufacturer voids the warranty on their protector.

That warranty is to convince the naive that it provides protection. Get the naive to ignore a glaring fact. It does not even claim surge protection in its numeric specs. Others have often tried to get that warranty honored. Newsman on 10 Sept 2002 in the newsgroup alt.video.ptv.tivo entitled "SONY TiVo SVR-2000"

View manufacturer numeric specs. Where does it list each type of surge and protection from that surge? Nothing exists? Hyped is a big buck warranty with numerous fine print exemptions. Read the numeric specs and the fine print. The computer protected itself. Failure and that mythical warranty gets the naive to recommend that Belkin.

Reply to
westom

Complete nonsense.

According to the NIST guide, the major cause of damage is probably high voltage between power and cable/phone wires. The IEEE guide has an example of that starting pdf page 40. The example shows how a plug-in suppressor provides protection by running both power and cable wires through the suppressor. Poor w just can't understand that ALL wires coming from a set of protected equipment MUST go through a plug-in suppressor.

It is inconceivable that Belkin would not have said that in its instructions for a suppressor with a warranty. The Tivo connection was incorrect and Belkin properly rejected the claim.

Each type of surge is nonsense. In the US plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That protects from all surge modes. That is how any quality suppressor is built.

Still missing - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And still missing - answers to simple 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 NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Reply to
bud--

The voltage was the same but it was limited by the MOVs in the plug-in suppressor. That is how plug-in suppressors work - by limiting the voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment to safe value.

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 US-UL standard that has been in effect since 1998 - UL1449 2nd edition. None of these US links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label. Maybe w thinks UK standards aren't as good.

But with no valid technical arguments all w has is pathetic scare tactics.

Poor w refuses to understand that suppressors don't work by absorbing or stopping surges. It is willful stupidity.

Still missing - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And still missing - answers to simple 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 NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Reply to
bud--

If nonsense, then Bud posted spec numbers. Oh Bud again forgot to find any spec numbers. Why does an employee paid to promote plug-in protectors not provide those protection specs? Because no manufacturer claims that protection. In facilities that never have surge damage, what is the protector? MOVs from each wire short (ie less than 10 feet) to earth. Bud's protectors do not do that - nor claim to provide protection.

Bud claimed his protectors will magically absorb all surge energy. Somehow it will stop a surge that even three miles of sky could not stop. Eventually he will cite selectively from NIST and others. But the NIST is blunt about protection:

Bud hopes you forget what the NIST says. Bud says his protectors make surge energy magically disappear. Just like the numeric specs he posted? Those also disappeared. What never disappears? The toxic, condescending, mockery and insult from Bud. Bud knows that insults are enough to *prove* that his protectors actually do something - other than enrich the manufacturer.

Did Bud forget to mention why telcos do not waste money on his protectors? Honesty would hurt profits. Honesty is to admit no manufacturer specs that claim protection from typically destructive surges. Honesty is not Bud.

Where are those plug-in protector specs that claim protection from typically destructive surges? Do not exist. No problem. It will protect from a surge that typically causes no damage. Then it can be called a surge protector.

Reply to
westom

Provided often, both by me and others, and always ignored. w just keeps repeating the same lie that specs don't exist.

A 10 year old could google for specs, but apparently the institution only lets w look at newsgroups - the internet has dirty pictures.

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.

w has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must directly use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. Unfortunately the IEEE guide explains that plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The guide says plug-in suppressors do NOT work primarily by earthing. Earthing occurs, but not primarily through the plug-in suppressor.

w is soooo stupid. I said at least 3 times that suppressors do NOT work by absorbing energy. If not hampered by a religious belief in earthing poor w could read in the IEEE guide how plug-in suppressors really work.

Not having any sources that agree with him that plug-in suppressors do NOT work poor w has to twist what others sources say.

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

Geez - why would anyone want to mock w??? Everyone got their wiring in compliance with the NEC yet?

Intelligence is not w.

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - simple 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 NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

And from other threads:

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

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device?

- Why do w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Reply to
bud--

If those specifications existed, bud would provide them with every post. Every lurker is invited to view numeric specifications provided for every plug-in protector. Where does it list protection from each type of surge? It never does. Instead, they have bud to promote myths - such as the spec numbers he posted.

bud says his protector stops and absorbs surges. Or that his protector magically makes that surge energy disappear. Effective protection is found in telco CO where they don't waste massive sums on bud's solution. The effective protector is connected far from electronics (up to 50 meters) and as close to single point earth as possible. Then a surge will find earth ground without going up to 50 meters destructively inside the building. Any home that earths a surge where AC wires enter the house means all household appliances are protected. It means protection already inside every appliance is not overwhelmed.

But this would affect bud's profit margins. So bud routinely does what he must always do: post lies, half truths, and myths. Such as manufacturer numeric specifications that he again forgot to post.

Where surge damage must never happen, every facility installs protectors with a connection to earth that is short as possible. No sharp bends. Separated from non-grounding wires. Not inside metallic conduit. These factors are essential and required for surge protection.

bud says a protector needs no earthing. His protectors magically stop what three miles of sky could not Amazing how a few hundred joules will stop surges of hundreds of thousands of joules. More numbers that a sales promoter must not provide.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A protector without that short connection to earth puts massive surge energy where? See the scary pictures

formatting link
) to appreciate why most fire departments have seen what plug-in surge protectors do too often when absorbing what three miles of sky could not.

Reply to
westom

Ho-hum. w just repeats the same lies and drivel.

w?s religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - simple 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 NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

And from other threads:

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

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device?

- Why do w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

-- bud--

Reply to
bud--

He still cannot provide a single manufacturer spec that claims that protection - for good reason. bud's protectors are for protection from a type of surge that typically causes no damage. A surge made mostly irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance. Why do GFCIs, smoke detector, clock radio, dimmer switches, and furnace not suffer damage? Do they also have invisible surge protectors? Of course not. A surge so small as to not damage those items can even destroy the ineffective and highly profitable plug-in protector:

formatting link
formatting link
But again, bud will not back up his claims with manufacturer numbers. No wonder the IEEE shows a TV protected by a nearby protector - destructively earthing the 8000 volt surge. Another example of a protector too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. Plug-in protectors need protection provided a 'whole house' protector. Another half fact he forgot to include.

IEEE makes recommendation in standards. Numerous IEEE standards note that a protector requires earthing to provide protection. From IEEE Standard 1100 (Emerald Book):

In short, no earth ground means no effective protection - which explains why even plug-in protectors need to be protected by a 'whole house' protector. bud does not promote those products. So where is even one plug-in manufacturer spec that claims protection in numbers. But again, one who promotes those products still cannot provide a single spec =96 because no plug-in protector manufacturer claims such protection.

In some places, those same protectors are marked with this phrase: =93Does not protect from lightning=94. Confirms that protector does not provide the protection. No wonder bud can never provide spec numbers for protection. It does not provide that protection. So bud attacks the messenger.

Reply to
westom

A favorite lie.

Here are specs posted in 4 previous threads (and ignored by w).

w will no doubt continue to ignore specs.

A lot of them, like GFCIs [RCDs] have very visible MOVs built in.

But that can't work can it w??? No earth ground means no effective protection.

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 ground at the power service that is far 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.

And it is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example damages anything.

Poor w. Religious fanaticism can be so debilitating. From the Emerald Book: Multiport surge suppressor: "A surge-protective device used for connecting equipment to external systems whereby all conductors connected to the protected loads are routed, physically and electrically, through a single enclosure with a shared reference point between the input and output ports of each system." The Emerald book is yet another source that recognizes plug-in suppressors as effective.

Planes are crashing every day. Or do they drag an earthing chain???

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - simple 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 NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

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

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

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device?

And from other threads:

- Why do w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Reply to
bud--

Again, where does the manufacturer list each type of surge and protection from that surge? If those numbers existed, bud could have simply posted them here. Instead he posted whole long discussions hoping nobody notices - he never postede those spec numbers anywhere.

An honest bud would simply quote manufacturer spec numbers right here. He cannot because no numeric specs exist that define protection. No plug-in manufacturer claims to protect from the type of surge that typically causes damage. bud refused to quote numeric specs because none exist.

As every bud citation notes, the effective protector makes a short connection to earth. No earth ground (ie plug-in protectors) means no effective protection. Every responsible source says energy must be diverted into earth where it is harmlessly absorbed. Where is that energy absorbed when the plug-in protector has all but no connection to earth? A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Reply to
westom

Just another bullsiht issue. One of w's favorite manufacturers - SquareD - does not have specs for "each type of surge". US-UL listed suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That is every combination and protects from every surge modes.

And the lie repeated again..

And again.

And again.

And again. As I said "w will no doubt continue to ignore specs"

And another lie.

The IEEE citation says plug-in suppressors do not protect primarily by earthing.

And both the IEEE and NIST citations say plug-in suppressors are effective.

And w's required religious mantra that protects him from reality.

Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective.

But what a surprise - still no citation that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

And of course still never answered - simple 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 NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

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

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

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device?

And from other threads:

- Why do w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

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.