Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding

[Charlie Siegrist]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:32:12 -0700, d_dd22222 wrote:

Don't worry all, I won't feed him again.

Ah but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:13:46 -0700, d_dd22222 wrote:

Would a few UPS units be worth investing in as a degree of surge
protection? I remember hearing once before that UPS devices provide
better surge protection than surge protectors in many cases... Any truth
to this? Do they provide any protection at all?

A UPS will give backup power in case of blackout. It will also give
filtering of noise, and protection against overvoltage and undervoltage
conditions. The quality varies. The best type to get is a pure sine
wave output with continuous inverter action. That is, no switching of
power occurs at blackout time. That might sound confusing; no worries,
do some research, and don't cheap out.

If I were to install a UPS, I would install a service-entry surge
protection, to protect the UPS!

Read the excellent reply by "bud--" where he gives the links to IEEE and
NIST documentation. Good reading.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:19:59 -0700, w_tom wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:56 pm, Charlie Siegrist
none.act...@this.time.check.back.later> wrote:
Does Romex make a 16 gauge building wire? Does the NEC allow it? You
seem to be saying this is so. Kindly confirm. ...
Please explain how and why. Concise mathematical verification, with
references, preferred.

Read cited EE Times. Other sources exist including ARRL handbooks
and QST articles. Concepts are also provided by publications from an
industry benchmark - Polyphaser. Start with:
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

Is that 50 foot romex 0.2 ohms or 0.1 ohms resistance? Irrelevant.
When compared to a relevant number (wire impedance), 0.1 and 0.2 are
equivalent. Why confuse resistance with impedance? To create
effective protection, impedance of an earthing connection must be
extremely low. Polyphaser makes a protector that has no connection to
earth ground. Impedance is so critical that the Polyphaser protector is
mounted ON earth ground - zero foot connection.

Oh dear. I don't see any answers there. I do, however, see a product
advertisement. No matter, let's try again!! I'll use numbers this time,
to make it easier. It will seem like school.

1) Does Romex make a 16 gauge building wire? Does the NEC allow it? You
seem to be saying this is so. Kindly confirm.

That 50 foot romex may also be 120 ohms impedance.

2) Please explain how and why. Concise mathematical verification, with
references, preferred.

One is
more related to wire diameter. Other is more related to wire length.

3) Again, explanation requested.

By the way, I really like your quote above:

"...0.1 and 0.2 are equivalent." It's a keeper!

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 24, 12:32 pm, d_dd22...@yahoo.com wrote:

First you say: "UPS claims surge protection only because it does have
some joules numbers."

Then you say: "Please post those UPS spec numbers that even claim to
provide surge protection. Even the manufacturer doesl [sic] not
publish such claims."

I'm not interested in proving the answer to the question that I asked
to you but I do suggest that you decide to perpetuate non-
contradictory statements. It might make your life easier.

The statements are not contradictory. Manufacturers are held
responsible for claims in numeric specs. So no protection claims
exist there. Subjective claims made in sales brochures can say most
anything.

UPS manufacturer does not list each type of surge and does not claim
protection from each type in numeric specs.

However the manufacturer must claim a joules number. Where are
those MOVs? Not stated. So what are they protecting from? Does the
existence of joules mean surge protection exists? Of course not. But
that is sufficient to suggest "surge protection" in a color glossy
brochure. Now a retail salesman can claim the UPS provides surge
protection.

UPS provides no effective surge protection as others have also
noted. Any claims that a UPS provides protection are based only in
subjective reasoning from color brochures. It says "surge
protection". Therefore it provides protection from ALL types of
surges? Nonsense. Since that joules number is all but zero - then
subjective reasoning can claim effective protection even though
numbers say otherwise.

Where does a plug-in UPS manufacturer made numeric protection
claims? Well, the UPS does provide protection from a type of surge
that typically causes no damage. That means it protects from surges
that typically cause damage? Again, a conclusion based only upon
subjective reasoning. If we assume all surges are same type, then a
subjective conclusion can be rationalized. No protection claim from
typically destructive surges exists in numeric spec sheets because no
such protection exists.

Why does the manufacturer list joules - a number? When posting
spin, numbers must be avoided. But that numbers is required per a
standard. What does that joules numbers say? Protection is so
pathetically small as to be non-existent. Near zero is not zero
accordig to subjective claims on color glossy sales brochures. But
the manufacturer cannot and does not claim protection where claims
actually mean something: in numeric specifications.

Effective protection has a short connection to earth. Protection
means energy must be dissipated harmlessly someplace. Will those near
zero joules somehow absorb all that surge energy? Of course not. But
absorbing all that energy is what a UPS must do to provide effective
surge proetction. No wonder the manufacturer refuses to define
protection where it matters - in numeric spec sheets.

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 24, 12:32 pm, d_dd22...@yahoo.com wrote:

Manufacturers make untrue claims (marketing).  People make untrue
claims (ignorance).

My posts said same.

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 24, 8:56 pm, Charlie Siegrist
<none.act...@this.time.check.back.later> wrote:

Does Romex make a 16 gauge building wire? Does the NEC allow it? You
seem to be saying this is so. Kindly confirm.
...
Please explain how and why. Concise mathematical verification, with
references, preferred.

Read cited EE Times. Other sources exist including ARRL handbooks
and QST articles. Concepts are also provided by publications from an
industry benchmark - Polyphaser. Start with:
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

Is that 50 foot romex 0.2 ohms or 0.1 ohms resistance? Irrelevant.
When compared to a relevant number (wire impedance), 0.1 and 0.2 are
equivalent. Why confuse resistance with impedance? To create
effective protection, impedance of an earthing connection must be
extremely low. Polyphaser makes a protector that has no connection to
earth ground. Impedance is so critical that the Polyphaser protector
is mounted ON earth ground - zero foot connection.

 

[w_tom]

Manufacturers make untrue claims (marketing).

Which is what Bud does.

On Jun 24, 11:45 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is in a
guide from the IEEE at:http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversio...

And a guide from the US NIST at:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
....
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
(limiting) 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.

Both Bud's citations say why plug-in protectors don't provide surge
protection AND why such protectors can even contribute to appliance
damage. Bud promotes surge protectors and will not admit why he
promotes them. Bud will post incessantly to make everything nasty.
Bud is not an honest person. Bud will be challenged to provide a
single plug-in spec that claims protection. Bud cannot because no plug-
in protector manufacturer will claim, in numbers, to provide surge
protection.

Bud's first citation from the NIST says what a surge protector does.
It does not stop, absorb, or make surge energy miraculously disappear
by clamping. Surge energy must be dissipated harmless in earth:

What these protective devices do is neither suppress
nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground,
where it can do no harm.

Bud says

Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing
The NIST says surges must be earthed. From Bud's NIST citation:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

NIST says the protector must be earthed AND a protector is "useless
if grounding is not done properly." Bud lies about what NIST says.
But then Bud is here to protect profits.

Bud's second citation demonstrates what happens when a protector is
too far from earth ground AND too close to appliances. Bud says read
starting page 40. So on Page 42 Figure 8. A surge is earthed, 8000
volts destructively, through the adjacent TV. Protector too far from
earth and too close to appliances.

Surge protection has always been about earthing before the surge can
enter a building. Why will Bud post myths and half truths? According
to Bud, you must buy $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protector - spend tens
or 100 times more money. Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10
parts. Sell it for $10 in the grocery store. Or sell it with a
fancier paint for $150 in Circuit City, Best Buy, or Radio Shack. See
that profit margin? Bud will turn this discussion nasty. Profit
margins are at risk.

Every responsible source says surge energy must be dissipated
harmlessly in earth. No short connection to earth means mythical
surge protection. Bud claims his plug-in protector will stop what
three miles of sky could not. Bud claims his plug-in protector will
make surge energy disappear. Ok. Then Bud can provide a numerical
specification that claims such protection. After 600 requests - he
gets paid for doing this - Bud cannot provide what no manufacturer
will claim. No plug-in protector manufacturer claims protection from
a type of surge that typically creates damage. Bud never provides
that spec because that specification does not exist. Bud hopes you
will believe his half truths. Bud's citations even show how plug-in
protectors contribute to appliance damage - 8000 volts earthed
destructively through an adjacent TV – Page 42 Figure 8.


Effective surge protection is earthing - as the NIST citation says
repeatedly. Even your cable company will recommend removing that plug-
in protector. A 'magic box' protector does not claim to provide
protection. Cable is earthed where it enters the building. Plug-in
protector does what - clamp both surges and TV signals to nothing? If
it stops surges, it also stops TV signals. Worse, Page 42 Figure 8 -
it can even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent
TV. Protection is about earthing before a surge can enter a
building.

Bud spins a myth. Even I would sell plug-in protectors to people so
naive as to learn technology from a sales promoter. Take a $3 power
strip. Add some 10 cent parts. Sell it for $25 or $150 to the
naive. Even responsible companies will sell these. But only
responsible companies sell the protectors that actually contribute to
protection. That is not who Bud promotes for. Who makes the
effective protectors? Square D, GE, Siemens, Keison, Leviton, Cutler-
Hammer, Intermatic - etc. Who only sells scam plug-in protectors?
Belkin. Monster Cable. Equivalent circuit in a $150 Monster Cable
product is also in a $10 protector in the grocery store. Profit
margins that Bud must protect.

Bud's citations show what a plug-in protector might do AND why plug-
in protector can even contribute to appliance damage. Bud's citations
all state that the protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Bud ineffective protectors promoted by Bud don't have
earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection. How will
Bud protect those profit margins? He will post insults.

Do you determine a good product by tone? Or do you look at facts.
Every citation posted even by Bud says the protector must have that
earthing connection. Bud's citations even show how appliances get
damaged when the protector is too close to electronics and too far
from earth ground - Page 42 Figure 8. Bud will say anything to
confuse reality on that page. Bud also hopes you don't read page 19
of 24 in his NIST citation:

The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Bud says grounding is not necessary when NIST says otherwise. Bud

says clamping to nothing will make surge energy disappear. Bud must
say anything to protect obscene profit margins.

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 25, 12:29 am, Charlie Siegrist
<none.act...@this.time.check.back.later> wrote:

Oh dear. I don't see any answers there. I do, however, see a product
advertisement. No matter, let's try again!! I'll use numbers this time,
to make it easier. It will seem like school.

Why are you being an ass? Technical answers were provided in both
'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times.
Apparently you are being funny by not reading them. Articles are
entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients".
What is discussed? Earthing. Impedance. Engineering formulas are
provided. Things that provide surge protection. Not discussed are
plug-in protectors and that UPS.

Where is product advertisement? You asked for advanced technical
numbers. Formulas are there. No product advertisement was provided.
Anoher fool's joke.

Polyphaser does not sell earth ground. Few if any Polyphaser
products are discussed in Polyphaser application notes. Those
legendary app notes discuss what provides protection - earthing.
Since Charlie says, "I do, however, see product advertisement", then
Charlie did not read - just posted to be funny.

Things that provide surge protection have a dedicated and short
connection to earth ground. Scams promoted by Bud take a $3 power
strip, add some 10 cent parts, and sell for an obscene $25 or $150.
Protectors that don't even claim to provide protection have product
names such as APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable. No earth
ground means, well, what did the NIST say?

A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

What does every responsible source state as necessary for surge
protection? That connection to earth ground. For a low impedance
connection, an earth ground wire from the protector is typically 'less
than 10 feet' - no sharp bends, no splices, etc. Damage averted only
when surge energy is dissipated harmlessly in earth. Plug-in
protectors or a UPS will somehow make that surge energy disappear?
Myth. Charlie thinks he is funny by inventing 16 gauge AC electric
romex. Charlie made a joke. Oh dear. Its not even funny.

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 25, 12:22 am, Charlie Siegrist
<none.act...@this.time.check.back.later> wrote:

A UPS will give backup power in case of blackout. It will also give
filtering of noise, and protection against overvoltage and undervoltage
conditions. The quality varies. The best type to get is a pure sine
wave output with continuous inverter action. That is, no switching of
power occurs at blackout time. That might sound confusing; no worries,
do some research, and don't cheap out.
...
Read the excellent reply by "bud--" where he gives the links to IEEE and
NIST documentation. Good reading.

Charlie forgets to mention some facts. A UPS that does filtering
costs $500 and higher. The computer grade UPS typically outputs,
well, 120 volts from this UPS is two 200 volts sine waves with a spike
of up to 270 volts between those sine waves. That is noise filtering
and protection from overvoltage? Of course not. Computer grade UPS
manufacturer quietly warn of damage to small electric motors if
powered by this UPS.

Of course, computer power supplies are so resilient as to make that
poor UPS power irrelevant. Where is the noise filtering and
protection from overvoltages? Inside the computer’s power supply.

Meanwhile, Bud's citations state why the UPS and power strips do not
even claim to provide surge protection:

Page 42 Figure 8 - an adjacent TV destroyed when the adjacent
protector earthed 8000 volts through that TV. Damage because the
protector was too far from earth ground and too close to the
appliance.

From the NIST:

A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Bud says a protector needs no earthing. Bud says clamping to nothing

is protection. Charlie agrees. Says so much about Charlie's reading
ability.

The number of sources that require earthing for surge protection is
long. For example, the IEEE Standard 141 says:

In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.
What provides the protection? Earth ground.

IEEE Standard 142 entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' says:

Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

IEEE Standard 1100 (the Emerald Book) says:

It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...
Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement
may result in hazardous potential being developed between
the telephone (data) equipment ...

How curious. This IEEE Standard repeats what is required for surge
protection. A single point earth ground. Where is the plug-in
protector recommended? Not found in IEEE Standard - where IEEE
recommendations are located.

Let's see. What does Sun Microsystems demand for protection of their
servers?

Section 6.4.7 Lightning Protection:
Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can be diverted.
The plans for the data center should be thoroughly reviewed to
identify any paths for surge entry into the data center. Surge
arrestors can be designed into the system to help mitigate the
potential for lightning damage within the data center. These
should divert the power of the surge by providing a path to
ground for the surge energy.

Bud's citations contradict his and Charlie's statements. Numerous
IEEE Standards also define earthing as the surge protection. Sun
Microsystem's Planning Guide for the Server Room also says protectors
must divert (clamp) surges to earth ground.

US Air Force says demand only protectors that connect at the service
entrance to earth ground. From QST July 2002 "Lightning Protection
for the

Amateur Radio Station":
The purpose of the ground connection is to take the
energy arriving on the antenna feed line cables and
control lines (and to a lesser extent on the power and
telephone lines) and give it a path back to the earth, our
energy sink. The impedance of the ground connection
should be low so the energy prefers this path and is
dispersed harmlessly. To achieve a low impedance the
ground connection needs to be short (distance),
straight, and wide.
...
The goal is to make the ground path leading away from
the SPGP more desirable than any other path.

Just another source, not selling plug-in protectors, that defines
protection in terms of earth ground and low impedance connections to
that earth ground. Just another responsible source that contradicts
Bud and Charlie Siegrist.

Dr Kenneth Schneider:

As previously mentioned, the connection to earth ground can
not be over emphasized. ...
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to
ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning
protection device grounds the incoming signal connection
point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting the
threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance (impedance)
to ground where it is absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of
switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow
dissipation of the surge energy. The switch, of course,
dominates the design and the cost. Yet, the need for a good
ground connection can not be emphasized enough.
Computer equipment has been damaged by lightning, not
because of the absence of a protection device, but because
inadequate attention was paid to grounding the device properly.

Must the OP rewire his two wire receptacles to three wire as Bud and
Charlie recommend? Of course not. Every responsible source says
protection is about earthing where the surge might enter the
building. Upgraded earthing at the breaker box and one 'whole house'
protector provides massive protection .... that provides "only
99.5-99.9% protection". How much protection does a plug-in protector
or UPS claim to provide? None. Rewire the house for 3 wire
receptacles so that ineffective plug-in protectors can be used? The
effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance AND
requires no household rewiring. The 'whole house' protector for about
$1 per protected appliance actually provides protection per NIST,
IEEE, US Air Force, Sun Microsystem, ARRL (QST Magazine), Polyphaser,
and so many other sources from even 100 years ago.

Only a fool would buy Charlie's UPS for surge protection. Charlie -
where is that UPS numeric spec that lists each type of surge and
protection from that surge. Oh. Like Bud, you cannot find that
spec. Why should anyone believe you. Because you are a nice guy?
Nice guys with that big toothy smile also make untrue claims
(marketing).

Charlie would also have the OP rewire his building with 3 wire
receptacles - as if that provides surge protection. The superior
surge protection also means no such rewiring AND spending tens or 100
times less money.

 

On Jun 25, 12:22 am, Charlie Siegrist
<none.act...@this.time.check.back.later> wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:13:46 -0700, d_dd22222 wrote:
Would a few UPS units be worth investing in as a degree of surge
protection? I remember hearing once before that UPS devices provide
better surge protection than surge protectors in many cases... Any truth
to this? Do they provide any protection at all?

A UPS will give backup power in case of blackout. It will also give
filtering of noise, and protection against overvoltage and undervoltage
conditions. The quality varies. The best type to get is a pure sine
wave output with continuous inverter action. That is, no switching of
power occurs at blackout time. That might sound confusing; no worries,
do some research, and don't cheap out.

If I were to install a UPS, I would install a service-entry surge
protection, to protect the UPS!

Read the excellent reply by "bud--" where he gives the links to IEEE and
NIST documentation. Good reading.

Would it be feasible to use two UPS devices and switch between them?

For example,

charge UPS #1
disconnect UPS #1 from mains
power computer from UPS #1 while charging UPS #2
when UPS #1 battery is dead, disconnect UPS #2 from mains and switch
to UPS #2...

I'm guessing it takes longer to charge than discharge but adding more
UPS could take care of that...

Would the constant cycling of the batteries make this impractical?

 

[Baron]

bud-- Inscribed thus:

w_tom wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:39 pm, d_dd22...@yahoo.com wrote:
I am moving into a home which was built in the late 1800s where
brownouts are common and no grounds are available on the outlets. I
will not have the option of rewiring the home.
.
Geez - NB and Baron are psychic...

I wish I was as sure picking lottery numbers ! ;-)

--
Best Reagrds:
Baron.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:23:51 -0700, w_tom wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:29 am, Charlie Siegrist
none.act...@this.time.check.back.later> wrote:
Oh dear. I don't see any answers there. I do, however, see a product
advertisement. No matter, let's try again!! I'll use numbers this
time, to make it easier. It will seem like school.

Why are you being an ass? Technical answers were provided in both
'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times.

Sorry, I asked you for answers to very simple questions about your own
statements. I did not ask for web references, except as concise and
specific support of your answers. No answers were provided, given two
opportunities. You have failed. You have proven that you have no
concept of the subject of which you speak. Bye now.

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Jun 24, 11:45 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is in a
guide from the IEEE at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf

And a guide from the US NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
....
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
(limiting) 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.

Both Bud's citations say why plug-in protectors don't provide surge
protection
..

Embarrassing questions never answered by w_:
- 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 is not an honest person.
..

w_ is not an intelligent person.
Poor w_ is not pleased when someone challenges his drivel.
..

Bud says
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing
..

The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing.
..

The NIST says surges must be earthed. From Bud's NIST citation:
..

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

Bud's second citation demonstrates what happens when a protector is
too far from earth ground AND too close to appliances. Bud says read
starting page 40. So on Page 42 Figure 8. A surge is earthed, 8000
volts destructively, through the adjacent TV. Protector too far from
earth and too close to appliances.
..

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

Poor w_ thinks the plug-in suppressor at TV1 damages TV2. 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.

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 cable 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
[plug-in]protector."
..

Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10
parts.
..

The last plug-in suppressor I bought (about $25) had 1 MOV that was
1475J, 75,000A and 2 that were 590J 30,000A.
Provide a source for a 75,000A/1475J MOV for $0.10.
..

Bud claims his plug-in protector will stop what
three miles of sky could not. Bud claims his plug-in protector will
make surge energy disappear.
..

w_ is fond of inventing opinions and attributing them to others.
..

After 600 requests - he
gets paid for doing this - Bud cannot provide what no manufacturer
will claim.
..

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.

Specs have been provided often (like above), but the village idiot just
ignores them.
..

No earth ground means no effective protection.
..

w_ is not just your normal troll. He is a religious fanatic.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work.

Unfortunately for w_, the IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work
primarily by CLAMPING not earthing.

Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups for
"surge" to paste his religious tract to convert the heathens.
Unfortunately this newsgroup must be mostly pagans.

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

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 - 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 25, 11:41 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

w_ is not just your normal troll. He is a religious fanatic.

Bud is my troll who follows me everywhere posting insults. Insult
are his only proof. His citations even show how a plug-in protector
causes damage. It is his job to promote obscenely profitable plug-in
protectors. Bud cannot even admit who he represents.

Let's see what UL approved protectors might do. Bud's standard
response: these UL approved protectors are not UL approved. Nonsense.
UL1449 standard have existed since 28 Aug 1985. Recent scary pictures
from fire departments, fire marshal, etc occur when a plug-in
protector (that meets UL standards) is constructed to maximize
profits; not provide protection:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

A protector that clamps to nothing must absorb surge energy. Where
do you put this protector? On a carpet behind furniture? Adjacent to
a desktop of papers? That energy must be dissipated someplace. If
not in earth, then were does surge energy get dissipated? Scary
pictures demonstrate another problem with plug-in protectors.

Problem made worse when the occupant only has two wire receptacles.
Bud still recommends his plug-in protectors on two wire receptacles.
After all, a plug-in protector works by clamping to nothing.

From Bud's citations, his protector without earthing may even earth
8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud does not even dispute this. Every responsible source says a
protector for typically destructive surges must have that short (ie
'less than 10 foot') connection to earth. As Bud's citation bluntly
says:

A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Bud says his protector works, instead, by clamping to nothing. It has

no earth ground. The OP also has no earth ground. Bud says that is
not a problem. Bud's protectors work by clamping to nothing.
Somehow surge energy gets stopped, absorbed, or magically disappears?
Bud pretends that surge energy does not exist - profits are at risk.

Every responsible source says protection is achieved by earthing.
Bud says a protector works by 'clamping to nothing' which means it can
work on two wire receptacles. Meanwhile, other responsible sources
show a plug-in protector without 'whole house' protection means a plug-
in protector can even contribute to appliance damage - 8000 volts
through the adjacent TV - or scary pictures.

OP asked about surge protection when only two wire receptacles
exist. Only solution is a same solution done wherever damage is not
an option. One 'whole house' protector with breaker box earthing
upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code
requirements. Installing a UPS or power strip that 'clamps to
nothing' will somehow stop or absorb that surge energy? Hardly.

Every responsible source (including those cited by Bud) state that
earthing - not a protector - provides that protection. Plug-in
protectors (built to maximize profits) can even create scary
pictures. What kind of protection is that? Protectors recommended by
Bud.

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 25, 2:39 am, d_dd22...@yahoo.com wrote:

Would it be feasible to use two UPS devices and switch between them?
...
I'm guessing it takes longer to charge than discharge but adding more
UPS could take care of that...
Would the constant cycling of the batteries make this impractical?

The typical UPS takes maybe 8 hours to charge the battery - and
discharge in 10 minutes. Furthermore batteries in a computer grade
UPS are not constructed for numerous discharge cycles. Batteries and
recharge circuits will be the cheapest possible - to provide backup
power maybe once a year.

What are you trying to accomplish? Surge protection or brownout
protection? A computer power supply must keep a computer working even
when voltage drops so low that incandescent bulbs are at less than 40%
intensity. A standard even required in Intel specs. Does your
computer power supply meet minimal standards? How often do lights dim
to less than 40%?

If surges are so severe as to operate electronics disconnected from
the grid, then a superior solution (that costs less money) is to
operate from a Honda generator. But again, what is the problem? What
are you trying to solve?

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:38:39 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net>
wrote:

A protector that clamps to nothing must absorb surge energy.

---
Correct.
---

Where do you put this protector?

---
Obviously, someplace where a failure won't cause a fire.
---

On a carpet behind furniture? Adjacent to a desktop of papers?

---
Stop being asinine.
---

That energy must be dissipated someplace. If
not in earth, then were does surge energy get dissipated?

---
Obviously, in the device which is absorbing the surge.
---

Scary pictures demonstrate another problem with plug-in protectors.

---
That it's possible for devices to fail under extreme conditions?
You have a remarkable grasp of the obvious.
---

Problem made worse when the occupant only has two wire receptacles.
Bud still recommends his plug-in protectors on two wire receptacles.
After all, a plug-in protector works by clamping to nothing.

---
Now you're making it abundantly clear that you don't know what you're
talking about, since a plug-in protector doesn't clamp to "nothing" it
clamps the voltage between line and neutral (line and earth ground and
neutral and earth ground also, if earth ground is present in the house
wiring and on the device being protected) the voltage it's rated to
clamp at and maintains that voltage as best it can during the period
of the surge.

Do yourself a favor and smart up on Metal Oxide Varistors and their
semiconductor kin (Transorbs, TVSs and the like) before you paint
yourself into an even smaller corner than you now occupy.
---

From Bud's citations, his protector without earthing may even earth
8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud does not even dispute this. Every responsible source says a
protector for typically destructive surges must have that short (ie
'less than 10 foot') connection to earth. As Bud's citation bluntly
says:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Bud says his protector works, instead, by clamping to nothing. It has
no earth ground. The OP also has no earth ground. Bud says that is
not a problem. Bud's protectors work by clamping to nothing.
Somehow surge energy gets stopped, absorbed, or magically disappears?

---
AS mentioned previously, it gets absorbed by the device doing the
clamping.
---

Bud pretends that surge energy does not exist - profits are at risk.

Every responsible source says protection is achieved by earthing.

---
Protection _can_ be achieved by earthing, if a good, low impedance
earth connection is afforded by the soil between the power company's
earth ground and the earth ground at the user's service panel.

However, if such isn't the case then a plug-in protector is the next
best thing and _will_ provide protection where none, or very little
existed before.
---

Bud says a protector works by 'clamping to nothing' which means it can
work on two wire receptacles.

---
He says nothing of the kind, and surge protection can easily be
provided by plug-in protectors connected across LINE and NEUTRAL on
2-wire receptacles.
---

Meanwhile, other responsible sources
show a plug-in protector without 'whole house' protection means a plug-
in protector can even contribute to appliance damage - 8000 volts
through the adjacent TV - or scary pictures.

---
You seem to think that someone who can't be afforded whole-house
protection, for whatever reason, should shun the use of plug-in
protectors, even though they have been unequivocally proven to be
effective. Of course, there have been some failures, but that's in
the nature of the game and buying high quality metal-housed units with
high-capacity transient voltage suppressors will go a long way toward
preventing failures.
---

OP asked about surge protection when only two wire receptacles
exist. Only solution is a same solution done wherever damage is not
an option. One 'whole house' protector with breaker box earthing
upgraded to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical Code
requirements. Installing a UPS or power strip that 'clamps to
nothing' will somehow stop or absorb that surge energy?

---
As previously explained, the device doesn't "clamp to nothing", it
clamps the surge voltage to whatever its TVSs are rated for.
---

Hardly.

---
Nope, not "hardly", definitely.
---

Every responsible source (including those cited by Bud) state that
earthing - not a protector - provides that protection. Plug-in
protectors (built to maximize profits) can even create scary
pictures. What kind of protection is that? Protectors recommended by
Bud.

---
And he's right.

The "scary pictures" you're talking about showed devices which took
the hits for the devices they were protecting until they finally
couldn't anymore.

Would you have preferred that the scary pictures showed, instead,
picture of devices which were killed by surges which weren't clamped
by plug-in protectors?

I think not.

JF

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Jun 25, 11:41 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
w_ is not just your normal troll. He is a religious fanatic.

Bud cannot even admit who he represents.
..

It is the usual w_ post - mischaracterizing sources and attempting to
discredit opponents.
..

Let's see what UL approved protectors might do. Bud's standard
response: these UL approved protectors are not UL approved. Nonsense.
UL1449 standard have existed since 28 Aug 1985.
..

From w_'s hanford link below:
"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."

From w_'s Gaston Co. link:
"More modern surge suppressors are manufactured with a Thermal Cut Out
mounted near, or in contact with, the MOV that is intended shut the unit
down overheating occurs [sic]."

If w_ had any knowledge of the field he would know UL 1449, *2nd Ed* was
effective in 1998.

w_ is too stupid to know the difference between a creation date and a
revision date.

And none of the links even says a damaged suppressor was UL listed.
..

Recent
,

Provide dates.
,

scary pictures
from fire departments, fire marshal, etc occur when a plug-in
protector (that meets UL standards) is constructed to maximize
profits; not provide protection:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
..

w_ refuses to 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 for overheating MOVs. 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.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

--------------
If there is no service panel suppressor and a large surge comes in on
power wires, at about 6,000V there will be arc-over from the hot busses
to the panel enclosure/ground/earth (which is also connected to the
neutral in US services). After initiation, the arc voltage is hundreds
of volts. There is also arc-over in receptacles at about 6,000V

Because of arc-over and branch circuit impedance to surges, surprisingly
little surge current can reach a plug-in suppressor. That means
surprisingly little energy can reach a plug-in suppressor.

(A technical paper from the author of the NIST guide is available if
anyone is interested.)

---------------
The author of the NIST guide has written "In Fact, the major cause of
TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than
an unusually large surge." Overvoltage is much longer duration than a
surge. Causes could be an open neutral or primary wire dropping on
120/240V secondary wires.
..

A protector that clamps to nothing must absorb surge energy.
..

If poor w_ could think he could figure out how plug-in suppressors work.
They do not protect by absorbing energy. As explained above, they absorb
surprisingly little energy unless they are very near the service panel.
..

Bud still recommends his plug-in protectors on two wire receptacles.
..

If poor w_ could read he could find out what I really said. (But that
might ruin the rant.)
..

Every responsible source (including those cited by Bud) state that
earthing - not a protector - provides that protection.
..

It is the religious belief in earthing.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The
IEEE guide explains how they work for anyone who is able to think.

Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still 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 the example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- Was the UL standard revised as w_'s own hanford link said?
- Did that revision require thermal protection next to the MOVs as w_'s
own hanford link said?
- What was the date of that revision - which w_'s own hanford link said
was UL1449 *2ed*?
- Where specifically in any of w_'s links did anyone say a damaged
suppressor had a UL label?

--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 26, 10:07 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

You seem to think that someone who can't be afforded whole-house
protection, for whatever reason, should shun the use of plug-in
protectors, even though they have been unequivocally proven to be
effective. Of course, there have been some failures, but that's in
the nature of the game and buying high quality metal-housed units with
high-capacity transient voltage suppressors will go a long way toward
preventing failures.

So where is this proof? Current is coming down any or all AC wires
is still seeking earth ground. Clamping the hot and neutral together
only means the same voltage is on both wires - still clamped to
nothing - surge still seeking earth ground. That is the point of Page
42 Figure 8. The protector clamped all those wires together.
Therefore the surge was clamped to earth 8000 volts destructively via
the adjacent TV.

Clamping two wires together does not dissipate the energy. Surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere. A clamp to something connects
that surge energy to what dissipates that surge energy. Clamping the
hot and neutral wire means surge energy remains on both wires -
unclamped - still seeking earth ground.

If plug-in protectors work as you have assumed, then where is this
manufacturer numeric spec that lists each type of surge and protection
from that surge? No such spec exists because clamping to nothing does
not protect from the typically destructive surge. Clamping all wires
together means the surge was clamped to nothing, OR (Page 42 Figure
8) the adjacent TV did the clamping - 8000 volts destructively.

Its called a protector. So you *know* it protects from all types of
surges? With or without plug-in protectors, a properly earthed 'whole
house' protector is required - which is why telcos don't waste money
on plug-in protectors.

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:39:47 -0700, d_dd22222 wrote:

To poster: I've snipped material that I feel is confusing, leaving only
answers to singular questions. I think it reads better this way.

Would it be feasible to use two UPS devices <snip

For only one reason. You have two critical and redundant systems.

For example, <snip

After an outage, the UPS battery will charge while simultaneously
supplying the load. During normal operation, the UPS battery will be on
a float charge.

I'm guessing it takes longer to charge than discharge <snip

You've got that backwards. The UPS will discharge only in the event of a
power outage. If you've chosen a unit appropriate to your load, recharge
time will be significantly shorter than discharge time.

You need to read some reference material. I recommend the library, but
there are some internet resouces that are quite good. Whatever you do,
stay away from the rambling misinformation on the "polyphasor" site. But
you probably already knew that

 

[Charlie Siegrist]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:59:03 -0700, w_tom wrote:

Charlie forgets to mention some facts.

Here are some facts. You're a liar and a fraud. You are incapable of
answering simple and direct questions. I have nothing more to say to you.