Surge protection without grounded plugs

[Jon Slaughter]

Another professional with decades of experience describes
protection:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a
strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines
knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
low ohm DC path.

Jon - how many decades ago were you building these systems; learning
from experience? How many decades ago were you tracing surge damage
by even replacing semiconductors to make electronics completely
functional? You claim we all have been wrong all this time? You did
not even know about wire impedance - why the earthing wire must be so
short, no sharp bends, separated from other wires (which is why the
ground or neutral wire inside Romex is not sufficient for earthing),
no splices, not inside metallic conduit, etc. Why do we know about
things so important for earthing? Do you even know why that wire must
not be inside metallic conduit?

How many semesters did you take in Electromagnetic Wave Theory?

Actually I probably know more about EM theory than you. Do you know anything
about Tensors, the Retarded Curl theorems, Vector Laplacians, Relativistic
Maxwels equations, etc..? I doubt it...

I'm not ignoring anything and infact I'm taking into account much more than
you. Your ignoring the cost it takes to rewire a house for earth ground. The
fact that neutral is earth ground but usually exists at a slightly higher
potential because of resistance. The fact of the matter is that you might be
right in theory but for all practical reasons your wrong. Sure one
shouldn't but a price on life but the fact of the matter is, is that people
do it every day.

Now since your such an expert and believe in having earth grounds outweigh
any cost then why not do it for the guy for free? Why don't you also
compaign to get all applicances to support earth ground?

Can you do me a favor though? Can you look at the number of people killed a
year by toasters? How bout electrical shocks from appliances in general? How
bout electricity in general? Compare that with people dieing by car crashes.

The fact is your a saftey nutt. There are hundreds of millions of homes in
the world that don't use earth ground and very few people die from it. A
properly designed device can go a long why without earth ground. All earth
ground is is a extra measure of safety. If they wanted you could add 10
earth grounds and it wouldn't make a device any safer if it wasn't used
properly and wouldn't add anything over just one ground(for obivous
reasons).

I never claimed that earth ground was evil or bad... but there are practical
considerations that you easily overlook.

The OP said

"The house's plugs aren't grounded. Will this affect the efficacy of a
surge protector?
Is the computer at risk or just the AC adapter?"

And the fucking fact of the matter is that earth ground plays no role in the
efficiency because netural is approximately earth ground(in theoretically
they should be equivilent if it wasn't for resistance).

This is why your wrong in that you keep arguing about something that no one
asked.

Now if he asked about the safety it would be an entirely different matter...
and its ok to point out that rewiring the house would go a long way for
safety factors.

Now if you really want to prove to me that your write about the OP's
question and that I'm wrong then show me a circuit that
improves(significantly) its surge capabilities by using earth ground over
one that doesn't.

Talking about safety has nothing to do with it cause I don't give a shit
about that. Its not what the OP asked and I'm sure many people have pointed
how why earth ground is used. You can beat that nail to death but it isn't
going to change anything. You can also talk about how you have been rewiring
houses since you were a baby shitting in your diapers and pissing in your
mouth but it doesn't change any of the facts. If you want to try and prove
something then do it with science and not authority cause I don't give a
shit if your the president of the electrical satefy club at your local HS.

Show me a circuit that significantly increases the surge protection that
uses earth ground to accomplish it over the best that can be done without
out using ground. Why not the worse? Because then you'll show me a circuit
without any protection and any ground and claim one with a ground and MOV
works better.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

So what does the typically destructive surge seek? Earth ground.
Why must those earthing wires be so short? Well let's finish the
math. An AC wall receptacle is maybe 50 feet from the breaker box.
IOW it is maybe 0.2 ohms resistance. But the same wire is something
like 130 ohms impedance to the surge. What happens when a power strip
protector attempts to earth a trivial 100 amp surge via neutral wire?
13.000 volts difference.

Of course the neutral does not earth the 100A surge. The IEEE guide has
an example of how a plug-in suppressor works (beginning pdf page 40).
The suppressor works 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. The guide explains *earthing occurs
elsewhere*. Because this violates w_’s religious belief in earthing he
can’t understand the example.

The effective protector earths before that surge gets anywhere near
to appliances.

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

Your MOVs protectors do protect from the type of surge as exampled.
Do appreciate that it is not the type of surge that typically causes
damage. Surge that damaged electronics seeks earth ground.

Bullcrap. Plug-in suppressors work on any surge. For surges coming in on
the power line, the neutral-ground bond at the service converts common
mode surges into transverse mode surges anyway.

If the MOV protector is grossly undersized as is common with
many plug-in protectors, then even these scary pictures can result:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

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 requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

Appreciate that I have understood earthing for probably longer than
you have existed.

Perhaps educated beyond his intelligence. w_ is on a crusade against
plug-in suppressors.

Reliable sources - both the IEEE and NIST guides - say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

w_ has never found a link that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And w_ has never explained:
- 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"?


--
bud--

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

No earth ground means
it must earth that surge somewhere. Published is this very first
conclusion in one 1996 IEEE paper:
Conclusion:

What does the 1994 (not 1996) paper really say about plug-in suppressors:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 the same author wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in
suppressors work.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what Martzloff says about them.

Again, you are ignoring what the typically
destructive surge seeks - earth ground. Again, you are ignoring wire
impedance - or why that earthing connection must be so short. Again,
where is the surge energy dissipated?

Never fly in an airplane. They do not have the required short connection
to earth to protect against surges and lightning strikes. (Jon is so
stupid - he thinks airplanes are safe.)

What happens if that plug-in protector grounds a surge on neutral
wire? A transient is then induced on all other adjacent wires - more
transients inside a building. Where is the protection? Just another
reason why the plug-in solution is ineffective.

Surges that come into a house on the neutral wire are directly earthed
by the neutral-ground bond in US power services. A plug-in suppressor
clamps the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor.
The voltage on the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for
the equipment. The IEEE guide explains that earthing occurs elsewhere.

Does your telco install plug-in protectors adjacent to their $multi-
million switching computers? Of course not.

What a surprise! telcos don’t use plug-in suppressors to protect high
amp hard wired switches with thousands of signal wires that would have
to go through the suppressor.

The NIST defines what a protector does on page 6 (Adobe page 8 of
24) .
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and:
"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,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV 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."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the NIST guide says about them.

How did Orange Country stop surge damage to their emergency response
facilities? Did they install plug-in protectors? Of course not.
Orange County fixed their earthing systems - nothing more:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

w_ has a fetish about tower antennas (including some other links). If
you plan on erecting a 280 foot lightning rod (aka. tower antenna) in
your yard and connecting it to equipment in your house this may be
relevant. But not for the rest of us.

It is the only solution for a house with
two wire receptacles.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea. They may not practical for
the OP because the house is probably rented.

If relying only on a service panel suppressor, make sure the phone,
cable, ... entry protectors are connected with a *short* wire to the
earthing wire at the power service. Without a short wire, a high voltage
can develop between power and signal wires that can damage equipment
connected to both. That is why the NIST guide, above, says “No for
two-link appliances”.
(That does not cover all surge possibilities, like voltage from cable
center conductor to shield.)

Then where does that plug-in protector's
specs even claim protection from the type of surge that does damage?
It does not.

Complete nonsense.

The
effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance.

If you count light bulbs and outlets as appliances.

Instead, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

The requires statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for
earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both
the IEEE and NIST guides say they are effective.

w_ has no links in his post that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And no answers to the great questions of age:
- 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 did Martzloff’s paper say “Mitigation of the threat can take many
forms. One solution ... is the insertion of a properly designed
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”


--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

Jon Slaughter is not ignoring anything? Your post even ignores what
the original poster asks. There is no major rewiring cost. Necessary
for both human safety and surge protection is an 8 foot earth rod and
less than 10 feet of bare copper 6 gauge wire. Where is this massive
cost? Why do you also trivialize that cost by justifying "a price on
human life"?

Why do you post about people killed by toasters? David Schwartz
asked nothing about toasters. Jon completely ignores his problem and
ignores industry standard solutions. Why, Jon, do you recommend plug-
in protectors that do not provide effective protection (don't even
claim to provide protection) and that are even a safety threat on two
wire receptacles?

An effective protector has a short earthing connection. A plug-in
protector has all but no earthing when too far from earth ground and
too close to an appliance. A human safety threat is also demonstrated
by 'scary pictures' of grossly overpriced and ineffective plug-in
protectors. Even a report from a North Carolina Fire Marshall notes
how 'protector' fires may be mistakenly blamed on an overload. Did
you learn from any of those citations? Why do you even ignore:

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Jon recommends a plug-in protector? He also recommends leaving
earth grounds missing because human safety is irrelevant? Jon did not
understand meaning of 'divert' in that above quote? He recommends a
device that requires earth ground but does not even have a safety
ground? Jon erroneously assumes those two grounds are same because he
does not even comprehend the significance of wire impedance and the
importance of 'divert'. Jon provides no technical facts to support
his supposition. Jon recommends multiple plug-in protectors that
don't even claim to provide protection. Jon recommends not upgrading
a building's earth ground that provides both human safety and
transistor safety. He says it is too expensive.

Meanwhile neither safety ground nor neutral wire does anything
effective. Simple wire impedance (a 13,000 volt example) makes that
obvious. Jon even ignored citations that repeatedly answered this:

Show me a circuit that significantly increases the surge protection
that uses earth ground to accomplish it over the best that can be
done without out using ground.

Standard solutions were provided how many times - 15 - 20? Did
you read any of them?

Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. ...

When effective protection is installed, in every case, earthing
defines each layer of protection. When protection was ineffective,
what did they do? Did they install plug-in protectors? Of course
not. They required a solution - not a scam. They fixed earthing in the
Orange County FL emergency response center:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

But again, cited are technical reasons - not claims punctuated with
'shit' and 'fucking'. Jon, do you have anything technical to post -
such as the numeric specification from that plug-in protector that
even claims protection from each type of surge? Where are those
numbers?

Jon, you even confuse wire resistance with wire impedance (why
connections must be short, no sharp bends, not inside metallic
conduit, etc). With basic electrical knowledge, then you would
understand why wire impedance is so critically important. You would
know why the US Air Force requires all protectors at the service
entrance and why an industry benchmark - Polyphaser - discussed
earthing extensively. You don't possess technical experience of
simple electrical concepts AND you obviously never worked where
effective protection is routinely installed.

With experience, then you have seen where a plug-in protector
earthed a surge, destructively, through adjacent electronics. With
experience, then you would know that earth rod and 6 AWG wire is
inexpensive. You even trivialize human safety; even justify
unnecessary risk by citing a toaster. Do you know anything about
earthing or safety ground other than what is in a Wikipedia article?
Apparently not based upon what you have posted.

Older homes with two wire receptacles typically do not have
sufficient earthing. Often that earthing is even missing. In one
case, a house even exploded because earthing was missing. The
original poster is encouraged to inspect - maybe upgrade - earthing
that provides both human safety and transistor safety. Jon never
knew what is "the cost it takes to rewire a house earth ground". That
cost is known trivial when one has knowledge and experience.

On Sep 24, 10:59 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com>
wrote:

...
I'm not ignoring anything and infact I'm taking into account much more than
you. Your ignoring the cost it takes to rewire a house for earth ground. The
fact that neutral is earth ground but usually exists at a slightly higher
potential because of resistance. The fact of the matter is that you might be
right in theory but for all practical reasons your wrong. Sure one
shouldn't but a price on life but the fact of the matter is, is that people
do it every day.

Now since your such an expert and believe in having earth grounds outweigh
any cost then why not do it for the guy for free? Why don't you also
compaign to get all applicances to support earth ground?

Can you do me a favor though? Can you look at the number of people killed a
year by toasters? How bout electrical shocks from appliances in general? How
bout electricity in general? Compare that with people dieing by car crashes.

The fact is your a saftey nutt. There are hundreds of millions of homes in
the world that don't use earth ground and very few people die from it. A
properly designed device can go a long why without earth ground. All earth
ground is is a extra measure of safety. If they wanted you could add 10
earth grounds and it wouldn't make a device any safer if it wasn't used
properly and wouldn't add anything over just one ground(for obivous
reasons).

I never claimed that earth ground was evil or bad... but there are practical
considerations that you easily overlook.

The OP said

"The house's plugs aren't grounded. Will this affect the efficacy of a
surge protector?
Is the computer at risk or just the AC adapter?"

And the fucking fact of the matter is that earth ground plays no role in the
efficiency because netural is approximately earth ground(in theoretically
they should be equivilent if it wasn't for resistance).

This is why your wrong in that you keep arguing about something that no one
asked.

Now if he asked about the safety it would be an entirely different matter...
and its ok to point out that rewiring the house would go a long way for
safety factors.

Now if you really want to prove to me that your write about the OP's
question and that I'm wrong then show me a circuit that
improves(significantly) its surge capabilities by using earth ground over
one that doesn't.

Talking about safety has nothing to do with it cause I don't give a shit
about that. Its not what the OP asked and I'm sure many people have pointed
how why earth ground is used. You can beat that nail to death but it isn't
going to change anything. You can also talk about how you have been rewiring
houses since you were a baby shitting in your diapers and pissing in your
mouth but it doesn't change any of the facts. If you want to try and prove
something then do it with science and not authority cause I don't give a
shit if your the president of the electrical satefy club at your local HS.

Show me a circuit that significantly increases the surge protection that
uses earth ground to accomplish it over the best that can be done without
out using ground. Why not the worse? Because then you'll show me a circuit
without any protection and any ground and claim one with a ground and MOV
works better.

 

[w_tom]

On Sep 25, 11:38 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

Of course the neutral does not earth the 100A surge. The IEEE guide has
an example of how a plug-in suppressor works (beginning pdf page 40).
The suppressor works 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. The guide explains *earthing occurs
elsewhere*. Because this violates w_'s religious belief in earthing he
can't understand the example.

Bud claims the protector works by clamping to nothing. Se we review
page 42 Figure 8 in his own citation. A protector is adjacent to a
TV. It is too far from earth ground. So it clamps? Yes, it clamps
the (maybe 100 A) surge 8000 volts destructively through TV2. A surge
seeks earth ground. If not clamped to earth (if clamped to nothing)
then a surge will increase voltage, as necessary, to obtain earth
ground. Page 42 Figure 8 - the surge is earthed 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV.

Bud promotes for the plug-in protector industry. His protectors
don't have a dedicated earthing wire and have massive profit margins.
Plug-in protectors that don't even claim to protect from a surge that
typically does damage. Furthermore, his protectors cannot be used on
two wire receptacles. Bud's post is completely irrelevant to the OP's
question - a house with two wire receptacles.

One protector that does clamp (shunt, divert, connect) to earth is
the protector also used where damage is not an option - the 'whole
house' protector. That telephone line protector, installed for free
on each subscriber line, also has an earthing wire. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground. Even Bud's citations warn
about that need for proper grounding. A plug-in protector can even
contribute to appliance damage - page 42 Figure 8. The OP's house
does not even have safety grounds - just another reason why his ony
option is one 'whole house' protector - properly earthed.

 

[w_tom]

On Sep 24, 2:31 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

w_tom wrote:
So what does the typically destructive surge seek?

What SURGE ?
A voltage transient across live and neutral 'seeks' nothing.

The surge seeks earth ground. A typically destructive surge
destroys chimneys and church steeples - why? It seeks conductive path
to earth. How did Franklin avoid that damage? He diverted electricity
to earth where the energy was absorbed. What makes Franklin lightning
rods so effective? Its earth ground.

A surge on AC electric wires is seeking earth ground. If not
earthed before entering a building, then a path to earth may be
destructive via appliances. This is the surge that damages household
appliances.

Any surge between line and neutral is trivial and daily made
irrelevant by protection already inside appliances.

What type of surge may overwhelm that internal appliance
protection? The one that seeks earth ground. What earths that
surge? A protector with a short ('less than 10 foot') connection to
earth.

Meanwhile one 'whole house' protector also makes a 'line to
neutral' surge irrelevant. One protector does what multiple plug-in
protectors hope to accomplish. Then one 'whole house' protector also
protects from a type of surge that actually does appliance damage
because it is earthed.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Sep 25, 11:38 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Of course the neutral does not earth the 100A surge. The IEEE guide has
an example of how a plug-in suppressor works (beginning pdf page 40).
The suppressor works 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. The guide explains *earthing occurs
elsewhere*. Because this violates w_'s religious belief in earthing he
can't understand the example.

Bud claims the protector works by clamping to nothing.

Bud repeats what the IEEE guide says - as in the quite above. w_ can
not understand because of his religious blinders.

Se we review
page 42 Figure 8 in his own citation. A protector is adjacent to a
TV. It is too far from earth ground. So it clamps? Yes, it clamps
the (maybe 100 A) surge 8000 volts destructively through TV2.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
entry. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to damage at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power service
‘ground’ is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.

A surge
seeks earth ground. If not clamped to earth (if clamped to nothing)
then a surge will increase voltage, as necessary, to obtain earth
ground.

The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. In the illustration
in the guide, pdf page 42, the guide explains earthing occurs primarily
through the ‘ground’ wire from the cable entry block to the power
service (but the wire is too long).

Bud promotes for the plug-in protector industry.

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.

Plug-in protectors that don't even claim to protect from a surge that
typically does damage.

Complete nonsense.

Furthermore, his protectors cannot be used on
two wire receptacles. Bud's post is completely irrelevant to the OP's
question - a house with two wire receptacles.

They are not “my” protectors.
With 2 wire receptacles there is not a good solution.
Plug-in suppressors can be used with 2 wire loads.
They could also be used with loads with grounding plugs but the grounds
can float. The grounds will also float with service panel suppressors.
The accepted practice with a grounding plug is use a GFCI receptacle.
Adding a phone or cable connection makes it more likely the GFCI will trip.
The best solution is to find a grounded receptacle.

One protector that does clamp (shunt, divert, connect) to earth is
the protector also used where damage is not an option - the 'whole
house' protector. That telephone line protector, installed for free
on each subscriber line, also has an earthing wire.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea. But if you rely only on them,
make sure the ‘ground’ wire from the phone, cable, ... entry protector
makes a *short* connection to the earthing wire at the power service. If
not a high voltage can develop between power and signal wires as
illustrated in the IEEE guide pdf page 40. That is one reason why the
NIST guide says:
"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,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV 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 protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

A plug-in protector can even
contribute to appliance damage - page 42 Figure 8.

The lied repeated.

The OP's house
does not even have safety grounds - just another reason why his ony
option is one 'whole house' protector - properly earthed.

It is not the OP’s house. It is the house his son is living in. His son
is likely renting. A service panel suppressor is probably not practical
for a renter.


Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors
work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they 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

And still no answers to the great questions of age:
- 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 did Martzloff’s paper say “Mitigation of the threat can take many
forms. One solution ... is the insertion of a properly designed
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--