Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

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.

Clamping two wires together does not dissipate the energy. Surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere.
..

Repeating:
"The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere."

In the explanation in the IEEE guide "the vast majority of the incoming
lightning surge current flows through the" cable entry ground wire, "and
exits the house via the grounding electrode, as the NEC/CEC writers
intended."
..

Clamping the
hot and neutral wire means surge energy remains on both wires -
unclamped - still seeking earth ground.
..

Repeating:
"If a power line surge creates a 1,000A current to earth with a very
good resistance to earth of 10 ohms, the power system ground rises
10,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. Much of the effectiveness of
surge protection is keeping the power and phone and cable wires at the
same potential with all of them floating up to 10,000V."

w_ is a fan of ground rods. In general 70% of the voltage drop is in the
first 3 feet from the ground rod. From the ground references (and
wiring)inside the building to earth over 3 feet from the rod there will
be at least 7,000V. A service panel suppressor leaves surge energy 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?
..

Neither of the SquareD "whole house" suppressors has numbers for "each
type of surge." SquareD does not even talk about different kinds of
surges. How could your "responsible" company omit this critical information.

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ invents issues.

Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible
combinations and all possible surge modes.

In addition, the N-G bond in US services converts common mode power line
surges to transverse mode surges.

--------
Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you
w_???

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.
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".

- 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?
Where are your answers w_???

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

--
bud--

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 27, 10:42 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ invents issues.

Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible
combinations and all possiblesurgemodes.

How does a plug-in protector cause computer damage? Surge on Hot
wire gets 'clamped' to Ground wire and Neutral wire. What happened in
so many locations when this happened? Surge energy remains clamped to
nothing. That energy enters a computer via green ground wire, passes
through motherboard and modem, then obtains earth via phone line or
cable. Just one of so many paths destructively through the computer
because the plug-in protector was too far from earth and too close to
the computer. So many more destructive paths because of the H-G, H-
N, and N-G connections.

What does a plug-in protector do? Gives the surge more destructive
paths through the adjacent computer or any other appliance in that
room. Page 42 Figure 8.

Bud lies. The plug-in protector is a complete protection system?
So the protector also makes that claim? Of course not. It only
protects H-G N-G H-N for a type of surge that typically does not cause
damage. Where does it claim to protect from typcially destructive
surges? Better is to make no numeric spec claims. Better is to hire
sales promoters to promote myths. Why does Bud never provide a
protection spec for his 'complete protection system'? Even the
manufacturer will not claim that protection.

What do responsible sources all say? A protector is simply a
connecting device to protection. Protection is defined by the quality
of and connection to earthing. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - where that surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly.

Even a well respected researcher notes the problem with plug-in
(point of connection) protectors in his IEEE paper. Martzloff says:

Conclusion
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Martzloff's primary conclusion. Bud will spin some details into a
perverted fact. But researchers always note what provides surge
protection - earth ground. Why do telcos and other high reliability
facilities not use Bud's protectors? They only have 100 years
experience connected to overhead wires all over town. Telcos use
properly earthed 'whole house' protectors and do not use ineffective
plug-in protectors. They need protection - not myths from a sales
promoter.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Where does
surge energy get dissipated? Either energy gets clamped to nothing
(which means energy may find earth ground destructively via
appliances) OR surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly in earth.
Where damage is not acceptable, effective protectors clamp to earth.
One 'whole house' protector for everything, or $2000 or $3000 of plug-
in protectors that don't even claim to provide that protection. Your
choice. Reality or more insults from Bud.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:56:32 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net>
wrote:

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.

---
No, it's seeking Neutral.
---

Clamping the hot and neutral together
only means the same voltage is on both wires - still clamped to
nothing - surge still seeking earth ground.

---
First, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_wire

Then consider this: (View in Courier)

HV>--+ +------L1
| |
| |
P||S
R||E--+---NEUT
I||C |
| | |
| | |
HV>--+ +--|---L2
|
GND


a typical US domestic mains supply with the voltage from L1 to L2
being 240V and the voltage from either phase to neutral being 120V,
NEUT being the center tap of the secondary of the transformer.

GND is the earthed connection of neutral, which is not designed to
carry current but is there in case of a problem with neutral.

Now consider the case where an ungrounded two-wire 120V appliance is
plugged into the mains:

HV>--+ +-----<<--+
| | |
| | [LOAD]
P||S |
R||E--+--<<--+
I||C |
| | |
| | |
HV>--+ +--|---L2
|
GND

Further, let's define the load as resistive and dissipating 120 watts.

Such being the case, the load will have a resistance of:

E˛ 14400
R = --- = ------- = 120 ohms
P 120W

and the current in it will be:

E 120V
I = --- = ------ = 1 ampere
R 120R



Now let's say that a lightning strike somewhere on the HV side of the
supply has caused a 1000V spike to occur across the half of the
secondary to which our appliance is connected.

All of a sudden, then, the voltage across the appliance will rise to
1000V, the current through it will rise to:


E 1000V
I = --- = ------ = 8.3 ampere
R 120R


and it'll be forced to dissipate:


P = IE = 8.3A * 1000V = 8300 watts


Clearly, at this point the appliance is in serious trouble

The solution?

A plug-in protector interposed between the load and the mains, like
this:

HV>--+ +-----<<-----+------<<----+
| | | |
| | [PROTECTOR] [LOAD]
P||S | |
R||E--+--<<-----+------<<----+
I||C |
| | |
| | |
HV>--+ +--|---L2
|
GND

let's say the protector is an MOV with a breakdown voltage of 150VRMS.

Normally, the MOV will appear to be an open circuit and will draw no
current, but what will happen when the lightning strikes is that when
the voltage across the MOV rises to 150 volts, it will break down and
allow current to flow through itself until such time as the mains
voltage falls below 150V, when it will once appear to be an open
circuit.

The reason for its use in the circuit is to prevent the voltage across
the appliance from rising to more than 150 volts, therefore providing
it with some modicum of protection against transients as can be seen
by considering that with 150V across the appliance it will be drawing
1.25 amperes and dissipating 187.5 watts, a far cry from 8.3 amperes
and 8300 watts.
---

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.

---
Definitely not, as I have explained in the foregoing.

As a matter of fact, if we completely removed the earth ground from
the circuit:

HV>--+ +-----<<-----+------<<----+
| | | |
| | [PROTECTOR] [LOAD]
P||S | |
R||E-----<<-----+------<<----+
I||C
| |
| |
HV>--+ +------L2

the plug-in protector would work just as well.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what "clamping" means in the
context of this discussion.

What it means is not allowing a voltage to exceed a particular value,
ergo "clamping" it to that level, which is exactly what plug-in
protectors do.
---

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?

---
Google "surge suppressor" without the quotes for a large number of
hits giving surge ratings. The word to look for is "Joules" and if
you don't know what it means, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
---

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.

---
Again, you obviously don't understand what "clamping" means in the
context of this discussion.
---

Its called a protector. So you *know* it protects from all types of
surges?

---
Within its ratings, yes.
---

With or without plug-in protectors, a properly earthed 'whole
house' protector is required

---
Not at all, as I explained earlier.

There's not much doubt that "whole house" protection has its
advantages, but when it's not available then plug-in protectors can be
used to good advantage.
---

which is why telcos don't waste money
on plug-in protectors.

---
Apples and oranges.

JF

 

[Jamie]

w_tom wrote:

On Jun 28, 10:23 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:

So where is this proof? Current is coming down any or all AC wires
is still seeking earth ground.

---
No, it's seeking Neutral.
...
Now let's say that a lightning strike somewhere on the HV side of the
supply has caused a 1000V spike to occur across the half of the
secondary to which our appliance is connected.

All of a sudden, then, the voltage across the appliance will rise to
1000V, the current through it will rise to:
...
Clearly, at this point the appliance is in serious trouble

The solution?

A plug-in protector interposed between the load and the mains, like
this:
...
Normally, the MOV will appear to be an open circuit and will draw no
current, but what will happen when the lightning strikes is that when
the voltage across the MOV rises to 150 volts, it will break down and
allow current to flow through itself until such time as the mains
voltage falls below 150V, when it will once appear to be an open
circuit.

The reason for its use in the circuit is to prevent the voltage across
the appliance from rising to more than 150 volts, therefore providing
it with some modicum of protection against transients as can be seen
by considering that with 150V across the appliance it will be drawing
1.25 amperes and dissipating 187.5 watts, a far cry from 8.3 amperes
and 8300 watts.



Which is all nice and good except that ohms resistance has near zero
relevance. As every responsible citation notes, *impedance* is the
critical factor. Whereas that neutral or ground wire via 50 feet of
romex may be less than 0.2 ohms, that same wire is maybe 120 ohms
impedance. Why? Wire is too long, too many splices, too many sharp
bends, etc.

A 100 amp surges is trivial. A trivial 100 amp surge 'clamped' by
the protector puts that protector at something less than 12,000
volts. That 12,000 volts puts all nearby TVs at risk as demonstrated
on Page 42 Figure 8. John – even 150 volts between H-N still means
all wires are at something less than 12,000 volts to earth.

Both 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering
Times discuss this in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients" published 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007:

The length of the cable increases the impedance dramatically.


Why does that responsible sources discuss impedance? Because surge
protection requires low *impedance* earthing which a plug-in protector
does not provide.

In many cases a protector should be bonded to a ground plane, ...
Often a ground grid is used to provide low impedance across the
ground plane. To intercept lightning, overhead grounded shield
wires can also be bonded to this ground plane. ...
Lightning is essentially a current impulse which is trying to return to earth.
... grounding here refers to the connection to the soil, which (hopefully)
will be the preferred path of lightning current.


Ground is what lightning seeks - earth ground. That protector must
be bonded *low-impedance* to earth ground. Not low resistance as John
Fields discuss. Low impedance which is why an earth ground for surge
protection is typically 'less than 10 feet'.

Why do responsible sources discuss sharp bends, splices, and wire
inside metallic conduit? None of these increase resistance - what
John discusses. All drastically increase impedance. *Low impedance*
(not resistance) defines effective protection.

Why do telcos do extensive construction so that every incoming wire
is only feet from earth ground AND up to 50 meters separated from
electronics? Again, resistance is irrelevant. Low impedance to earth
ground defines surge protection. Therefore wires must be shorter to
earth. High impedance (that up to 50 meter separation) further
supplements protection.

Plug-in protector clamping hot wire to neutral wire leaves that
surge energy still seeking earth ground. Why does the protector for
TV1 cause damage to the nearby TV2 – Page 42 Figure 8? TV1 was
protected because it was plugged into a surge protector? No.
Protector clamped surge energy to nothing. So surge energy was
shunted (connected) to earth destructively via TV2. It could have
been anything. But TV2 was the victim of that plug-in protector and
its unearthed surge. What kind of protection is that? A protector
that clamps surge energy to nothing.

More reasons why plug-in protectors are not effective: if a plug-in
protector was clamping surge energy into earth, then that 50 foot
ground (or neutral) wire bundled with all other wires has only induced
surges on other wires. Another reason why plug-in protectors can even
contribute to surge damage.

http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

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.


John Fields discusses a low ohm DC path - resistance. But surge
protection (from every responsible source) is about a low *impedance*
path. What does a plug-in protector not have? A low *impedance*
connection to earth and numeric specs that even claim to provide that
protection.

One 'whole house' protector means protection for about $1 per
household appliance. Plug-in protectors cost 25 or 150 times more and
do not even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. To
provide protection, wire impedance is not relevant. But every
responsible source defines protection in terms of impedance. John
Fields post is based on something irrelevant - wire resistance.

More drivel..
Please get off the soap!.

How many times must you recite the chapter out of what ever book it is
you're doing so. If I didn't know any better, I swear you're the author
of this book and trying to push it off on the rest of us.

I work in an industrial environment where we get hit on an average of
3 times each year from storms. It destroys a lot of stuff how ever,
there is very little in real life events where we work that supports
your theory as you have so edited.

We have equipment all over that uses MOV's or devices like it that
does not depend on ground as part of the device protection. The ground
is simply there connected to the chassis and cabinets to protect the
user/operator. If it happens to be on a GFCI. It could trip the circuit
but in that case, the device attached still gets whacked normally.


http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 28, 10:23 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

So where is this proof? Current is coming down any or all AC wires
is still seeking earth ground.

---
No, it's seeking Neutral.
...
Now let's say that a lightning strike somewhere on the HV side of the
supply has caused a 1000V spike to occur across the half of the
secondary to which our appliance is connected.

All of a sudden, then, the voltage across the appliance will rise to
1000V, the current through it will rise to:
...
Clearly, at this point the appliance is in serious trouble

The solution?

A plug-in protector interposed between the load and the mains, like
this:
...
Normally, the MOV will appear to be an open circuit and will draw no
current, but what will happen when the lightning strikes is that when
the voltage across the MOV rises to 150 volts, it will break down and
allow current to flow through itself until such time as the mains
voltage falls below 150V, when it will once appear to be an open
circuit.

The reason for its use in the circuit is to prevent the voltage across
the appliance from rising to more than 150 volts, therefore providing
it with some modicum of protection against transients as can be seen
by considering that with 150V across the appliance it will be drawing
1.25 amperes and dissipating 187.5 watts, a far cry from 8.3 amperes
and 8300 watts.

Which is all nice and good except that ohms resistance has near zero
relevance. As every responsible citation notes, *impedance* is the
critical factor. Whereas that neutral or ground wire via 50 feet of
romex may be less than 0.2 ohms, that same wire is maybe 120 ohms
impedance. Why? Wire is too long, too many splices, too many sharp
bends, etc.

A 100 amp surges is trivial. A trivial 100 amp surge 'clamped' by
the protector puts that protector at something less than 12,000
volts. That 12,000 volts puts all nearby TVs at risk as demonstrated
on Page 42 Figure 8. John – even 150 volts between H-N still means
all wires are at something less than 12,000 volts to earth.

Both 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering
Times discuss this in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients" published 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007:

The length of the cable increases the impedance dramatically.

Why does that responsible sources discuss impedance? Because surge
protection requires low *impedance* earthing which a plug-in protector
does not provide.

In many cases a protector should be bonded to a ground plane, ...
Often a ground grid is used to provide low impedance across the
ground plane. To intercept lightning, overhead grounded shield
wires can also be bonded to this ground plane. ...
Lightning is essentially a current impulse which is trying to return to earth.
... grounding here refers to the connection to the soil, which (hopefully)
will be the preferred path of lightning current.

Ground is what lightning seeks - earth ground. That protector must
be bonded *low-impedance* to earth ground. Not low resistance as John
Fields discuss. Low impedance which is why an earth ground for surge
protection is typically 'less than 10 feet'.

Why do responsible sources discuss sharp bends, splices, and wire
inside metallic conduit? None of these increase resistance - what
John discusses. All drastically increase impedance. *Low impedance*
(not resistance) defines effective protection.

Why do telcos do extensive construction so that every incoming wire
is only feet from earth ground AND up to 50 meters separated from
electronics? Again, resistance is irrelevant. Low impedance to earth
ground defines surge protection. Therefore wires must be shorter to
earth. High impedance (that up to 50 meter separation) further
supplements protection.

Plug-in protector clamping hot wire to neutral wire leaves that
surge energy still seeking earth ground. Why does the protector for
TV1 cause damage to the nearby TV2 – Page 42 Figure 8? TV1 was
protected because it was plugged into a surge protector? No.
Protector clamped surge energy to nothing. So surge energy was
shunted (connected) to earth destructively via TV2. It could have
been anything. But TV2 was the victim of that plug-in protector and
its unearthed surge. What kind of protection is that? A protector
that clamps surge energy to nothing.

More reasons why plug-in protectors are not effective: if a plug-in
protector was clamping surge energy into earth, then that 50 foot
ground (or neutral) wire bundled with all other wires has only induced
surges on other wires. Another reason why plug-in protectors can even
contribute to surge damage.

http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

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.

John Fields discusses a low ohm DC path - resistance. But surge
protection (from every responsible source) is about a low *impedance*
path. What does a plug-in protector not have? A low *impedance*
connection to earth and numeric specs that even claim to provide that
protection.

One 'whole house' protector means protection for about $1 per
household appliance. Plug-in protectors cost 25 or 150 times more and
do not even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. To
provide protection, wire impedance is not relevant. But every
responsible source defines protection in terms of impedance. John
Fields post is based on something irrelevant - wire resistance.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 16:39:50 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net>
wrote:

On Jun 28, 10:23 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
So where is this proof? Current is coming down any or all AC wires
is still seeking earth ground.

---
No, it's seeking Neutral.
...
Now let's say that a lightning strike somewhere on the HV side of the
supply has caused a 1000V spike to occur across the half of the
secondary to which our appliance is connected.

All of a sudden, then, the voltage across the appliance will rise to
1000V, the current through it will rise to:
...
Clearly, at this point the appliance is in serious trouble

The solution?

A plug-in protector interposed between the load and the mains, like
this:
...
Normally, the MOV will appear to be an open circuit and will draw no
current, but what will happen when the lightning strikes is that when
the voltage across the MOV rises to 150 volts, it will break down and
allow current to flow through itself until such time as the mains
voltage falls below 150V, when it will once appear to be an open
circuit.

The reason for its use in the circuit is to prevent the voltage across
the appliance from rising to more than 150 volts, therefore providing
it with some modicum of protection against transients as can be seen
by considering that with 150V across the appliance it will be drawing
1.25 amperes and dissipating 187.5 watts, a far cry from 8.3 amperes
and 8300 watts.


Which is all nice and good except that ohms resistance has near zero
relevance. As every responsible citation notes, *impedance* is the
critical factor. Whereas that neutral or ground wire via 50 feet of
romex may be less than 0.2 ohms, that same wire is maybe 120 ohms
impedance. Why? Wire is too long, too many splices, too many sharp
bends, etc.

A 100 amp surges is trivial. A trivial 100 amp surge 'clamped' by
the protector puts that protector at something less than 12,000
volts. That 12,000 volts puts all nearby TVs at risk as demonstrated
on Page 42 Figure 8. John – even 150 volts between H-N still means
all wires are at something less than 12,000 volts to earth.

---
But, what's important is that, at the appliance, the TVS clamps the
voltage between line and neutral to 150V regardless of the line
impedance.

Likewise, if another appliance at another outlet was protected by a
TVS then it would be irrelevant what common mode voltage existed on
either set, the voltage from line to neutral would still be limited to
150V.
---

Both 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering
Times discuss this in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients" published 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007:
The length of the cable increases the impedance dramatically.

---
Not really.

Since the conductors in the cable run parallel to each other the cable
is actually a transmission line and will exhibit some characteristic
impedance. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance
---

Why does that responsible sources discuss impedance? Because surge
protection requires low *impedance* earthing which a plug-in protector
does not provide.

---
Sigh... You _still_ don't get it.

What matters, as far as protection of the appliance is concerned,
isn't the common mode voltage on the cable conductors, it's the
voltage between line and neutral.

Which is why TVSs are effective, since they clamp that voltage to some
safe maximum which the appliance can stand momentarily.
---

In many cases a protector should be bonded to a ground plane, ...
Often a ground grid is used to provide low impedance across the
ground plane. To intercept lightning, overhead grounded shield
wires can also be bonded to this ground plane. ...
Lightning is essentially a current impulse which is trying to return to earth.

---
No, lightning is a very high _voltage_ impulse which causes immense
currents to flow when it strikes. Without the pressure of the voltage
causing an ionization path from the source cloud to earth, no current
will flow.
---

... grounding here refers to the connection to the soil, which (hopefully)
will be the preferred path of lightning current.

Ground is what lightning seeks - earth ground. That protector must
be bonded *low-impedance* to earth ground. Not low resistance as John
Fields discuss. Low impedance which is why an earth ground for surge
protection is typically 'less than 10 feet'.

---
Look at the subject line to learn why all your prattle about earth
ground is immaterial.
---

Why do responsible sources discuss sharp bends, splices, and wire
inside metallic conduit? None of these increase resistance - what
John discusses. All drastically increase impedance. *Low impedance*
(not resistance) defines effective protection.

---
Actually, from the POV of a plug-in TVS, the higher the impedance of
the line the better, since that will limit the current into the TVS
and thereby prolong its life, assuming an MOV is the TVS.

From a previous post, we have:

..HV>--+ +-----<<-----+------<<----+
.. | | | |
.. | | [PROTECTOR] [LOAD]
.. P||S | |
.. R||E-----<<-----+------<<----+
.. I||C
.. | |
.. | |
..HV>--+ +------L2


Now, lets modify it a little to show the wiring resistances of L1 and
Neutral:


..HV>--+ +--L1-------[Rl]---------<<-+----<<----+
.. | | | |
.. | | [PROTECTOR] [LOAD]
.. P||S | |
.. R||E--N--------[Rn]---------<<-+----<<----+
.. I||C
.. | |
.. | |
..HV>--+ +--L2

and redraw it for convenience, leaving out the transformer primary:

.. L1
.. |
.. +---E1
.. |
.. [Rl]
.. |
.. +---E2
.. |
.. [TVS]
.. |
.. +---E3
.. |
.. [Rn]
.. |
.. +---E4
.. |
.. N

Using a 50' run of 14AWG for the conductor results in Rl and Rn both
having a resistance of about 0.13 ohm, which means that with a 1000V
surge on the secondary of the transformer (between L1 and N) the
current through the TVS will rise to about:


E1 - (E2-E3) 1000V - 150V
I = ---------------- = ----------------------- = 2073 amperes
Rl + Rtvs + Rn 0.13R + 0.15R + 0.13R


Using your figure of 120 ohms for the impedance of each of the
conductors and replacing Rl and Rn with Zl and Zn, we have:


E1 - (E2-E3) 1000V - 150V
I = ---------------- = ----------------------- = 3.539 amperes
Zl + Rtvs + Zn 120R + 0.15R + 120R

So it's easy to see that, in this instance, the impedance has
dramatically reduced the current the TVS must pass while clamping the
voltage across the appliance to 150V and, in contrast to your
statement that the shorter the cable the better, if impedance
increases with length, the longer the better.

Snipped a lot of irrelevant crap...

JF

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 28, 8:17 pm, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

I work in an industrial environment where we get hit on an average of
3 times each year from storms. It destroys a lot of stuff how ever,
there is very little in real life events where we work that supports
your theory as you have so edited.

We have equipment all over that uses MOV's or devices like it that
does not depend on ground as part of the device protection. The ground
is simply there connected to the chassis and cabinets to protect the
user/operator. If it happens to be on a GFCI. It could trip the circuit
but in that case, the device attached still gets whacked normally.

You use unearthed MOVs everywhere. You suffer damage from lightning
3 times a year. You call that protection? More likely, MOVs without
earth ground are earthing surges destructively through equipment.
Effective protection means direct strikes (25 annually atop the Empire
State Building) and no damage.

If MOVs are properly installed (with the required short connection
to single point earth ground), then damage occurs zero times every
year. Damage three times a year is unacceptably excessive. Your
industrial environment "does not depend on ground as part of the
device protection." Therefore damage is acceptable? Average
locations may suffer a serious surge once every seven years without
damage, if protectors are properly earthed.

Jamie demonstrates why the US Air Force demands:

15.1. Entering or exiting metallic power, intrusion detection,
communication antenna, and instrumentation lines must have
surge protection sized for lightning surges to reduce transient
voltages to a harmless level. Install the surge protection as
soon as practical where the conductor enters the interior of
the facility. Devices commonly used for this include metal
oxide varistors, gas tube arresters, and transzorbs.

Lightning damage three times a year is so unacceptable as to be
traceable to human failure. Properly installed 'whole house'
protector with a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth is why:
http://www.tschmidt.com/writings/HomeLAN2008.htm

6.10 Secondary Lightning Protection
The key to minimizing lightning damage is bonding all services
together with a low impedance path to earth ground. All
conductors entering the building must be bonded together
and equipped with lightning protection. This minimizes
difference in potential during transient conditions.

6.10.1 Electrical
Whole house surge protector should be used to protect the
electrical system. Remember goal is to direct excessive energy
into a low impedance ground and to provide low impedance
bonding of all metallic conductors. ...
Lightning protectors do not absorb energy they divert it. If the
diversion path is not low impedance a substantial voltage
difference is created. This is what kills electronic gear.

Routine is a building connected to overhead wires all over town to
suffer maybe 100 surges during every storm and no damage. A protector
is only as effective as its earth ground. Jamie's protectors are not
earthed. Therefore surge damage is acceptable?

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Jun 27, 10:42 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ invents issues.

Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible
combinations and all possible surge modes.

Bud lies.
..

Bud repeat the "lies" of the IEEE and NIST.
..

Even a well respected researcher notes the problem with plug-in
(point of connection) protectors in his IEEE paper. Martzloff says:
..

w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994 document:
"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 1994 multiport suppressors were rather new.

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

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

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

If w_ could read, the IEEE guide explains plug–in suppressors work
primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the
common ground at the suppressor. The voltage between wires going to the
protected equipment is safe for the equipment. Plug-in suppressors do
not work primarily by earthing. The guide says earthing occurs elsewhere.

Still never seen - a link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you
w_???

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.
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".

- 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?
Where are your answers w_???

--
bud--

 

[Jamie]

w_tom wrote:

You still don't get it. Voltage between line and neutral -
especially if using a plug-in protector - is near zero. Typically
well below what internal protection in any appliance does. Common
mode voltage (whether plug-in protector exists or not) is the 8000
volts destructively across an adjacent appliance - Page 42 Figure 8.
How many sources must note this because you get it? Lightning seeks
earth ground. It finds a path to earth destructively via the
appliance. What is that thousands of volts? While you discuss trivial
hundred voltage surges that harm nothing, those thousands of volts is
common mode - it seeks earth ground.

Characteristic impedance is not relevant. Why do you confuse
characteristic impedance with wire impedance that is completely
different? Current is in the same direction on one or all wires -
seeking earth ground. Therefore characteristic impedance obviously is
not relevant. Why do responsible sources that discuss surge
protection not discuss characteristic impedance? It obviously is not
relevant.

An MOV shunting (connecting, conducting) 150 volts between two wires
means either the MOV conducts no current (because a voltage is same on
both wires) or the MOV simply provides a surge more paths to find
earth ground destructively via the adjacent appliance. An MOV at the
appliance is for surges that typically don't overwhelm protection
already inside all appliances.

Why do telcos not use your MOV solution? It does not provide
protection from surges that typically cause damage AND that surge it
would protect from what is also made irrelevant by the 'whole house'
protector. Yes, the 'whole house' protector is protection from all
types of surges. A more expensive plug-in protector protects from one
type of surge that typically causes no damage.

Telcos are not into enriching plug-in protector manufacturers.
Telcos need protection that works. That means a properly earthed
'whole house' protector on each incoming wire and no plug-in
protectors. At what point do you claim to be smarter than telcos all
over the world?

Sigh - you still don't get it. There is no responsible source
citing what you have been posting. The Electrical Engineering Times
articles are entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients". Why do they discuss earthing and completely ignore plug-
in protectors? Look at the title. EE Times does not promote popular
myths. Why do those articles discuss wire impedance (which is not
characteristic impedance)? Because effective protectors require low
impedance earthing. How many sources need be cited before John Fields
finally grasps the critical importance of low impedance earthing?
Even three IEEE Standards note what provides protection from typically
destructive surges - earth ground.

John Fields posts:

protection of the appliance ... isn't the common mode
voltage on the cable conductors, it's the voltage
between line and neutral.


No John. Voltage between line and neutral is near zero as a
destructive surge seeks earth ground (ie 8000 volts destructively) on
one or all of those wires. To promote grossly undersized and
obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors, then what is hyped to the
naive? Some irrelevant hot to neutral voltage - made irrelevant by
protection already inside appliances and also by a 'whole house'
protector.

Protection has always been about voltage between each wire and
earth. That protection also make voltage between hot and neutral
trivial. Effective surge protection means protection inside every
appliance is not overwhelmed. Protection not found in and not even
claimed by numeric specs for $25 or $150 plug-in protectors.

John - this is not rocket science. This was implemented even 100
years ago. After 100 years they are dumb and you know better? You
still don't get it. Why do telcos not do what you have posted?
Effective protection is required. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. Same principle even applies to lightning rods.
Why do you have a problem with such well proven principles?

John Fields posted:

Look at the subject line to learn why all your prattle about earth
ground is immaterial.

And view an earliest reply. Solution is not three wire
receptacles. Solution is earthing the breaker box to meet and exceed
post 1990 electrical code and one 'whole house' protector. Less
expensive than plug-in protectors. No three wire receptacles
required. Protection that is tens or 100 times less money per
protected appliance. Why do you promote plug-in protectors when even
the OP describes what plug-in protectors cannot be used on - two wire
receptacles? Why do you keep posting what is completely irrelevant to
the OP's question?

Orange County FL was suffering damage to emergency response
facilities. How was surge damage eliminated? Plug-in protectors? Of
course not. Emergency facilities needed protection - not a myth.
Orange county fixed the reason for surge damage - earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

A surge protector is only as effective as its earthing. How many
sources say this? Instead John Fields even confuses wire impedance
with characteristic impedance. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - where surge energy must be harmlessly dissipated.
Why do you repeat the myth promoted by retail salesmen? Where
effective protection is installed, protectors make that short (ie
'less than 10 foot') connection to a single point earth ground. Where
scams are promoted, well, how is that protector (that you promote)
acceptable on the OP's two wire receptacles? It's not.

On Jun 29, 9:36 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

But, what's important is that, at the appliance, the TVS clamps the
voltage between line and neutral to 150V regardless of the line
impedance.

Likewise, if another appliance at another outlet was protected by a
TVS then it would be irrelevant what common mode voltage existed on
either set, the voltage from line to neutral would still be limited to
150V.
...
Not really.

Since the conductors in the cable run parallel to each other the cable
is actually a transmission line and will exhibit some characteristic
impedance. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance
...

Sigh... You _still_ don't get it.

What matters, as far as protection of the appliance is concerned,
isn't the common mode voltage on the cable conductors, it's the
voltage between line and neutral.

Which is why TVSs are effective, since they clamp that voltage to some
safe maximum which the appliance can stand momentarily.
...


Ok, Another to add to my black list.

--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

"Daily Thought:

SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES. NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT
THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:16:10 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net>
wrote:

---
Nothing of any consequence.

Yup, yer a loon...

JF

 

[w_tom]

You still don't get it. Voltage between line and neutral -
especially if using a plug-in protector - is near zero. Typically
well below what internal protection in any appliance does. Common
mode voltage (whether plug-in protector exists or not) is the 8000
volts destructively across an adjacent appliance - Page 42 Figure 8.
How many sources must note this because you get it? Lightning seeks
earth ground. It finds a path to earth destructively via the
appliance. What is that thousands of volts? While you discuss trivial
hundred voltage surges that harm nothing, those thousands of volts is
common mode - it seeks earth ground.

Characteristic impedance is not relevant. Why do you confuse
characteristic impedance with wire impedance that is completely
different? Current is in the same direction on one or all wires -
seeking earth ground. Therefore characteristic impedance obviously is
not relevant. Why do responsible sources that discuss surge
protection not discuss characteristic impedance? It obviously is not
relevant.

An MOV shunting (connecting, conducting) 150 volts between two wires
means either the MOV conducts no current (because a voltage is same on
both wires) or the MOV simply provides a surge more paths to find
earth ground destructively via the adjacent appliance. An MOV at the
appliance is for surges that typically don't overwhelm protection
already inside all appliances.

Why do telcos not use your MOV solution? It does not provide
protection from surges that typically cause damage AND that surge it
would protect from what is also made irrelevant by the 'whole house'
protector. Yes, the 'whole house' protector is protection from all
types of surges. A more expensive plug-in protector protects from one
type of surge that typically causes no damage.

Telcos are not into enriching plug-in protector manufacturers.
Telcos need protection that works. That means a properly earthed
'whole house' protector on each incoming wire and no plug-in
protectors. At what point do you claim to be smarter than telcos all
over the world?

Sigh - you still don't get it. There is no responsible source
citing what you have been posting. The Electrical Engineering Times
articles are entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients". Why do they discuss earthing and completely ignore plug-
in protectors? Look at the title. EE Times does not promote popular
myths. Why do those articles discuss wire impedance (which is not
characteristic impedance)? Because effective protectors require low
impedance earthing. How many sources need be cited before John Fields
finally grasps the critical importance of low impedance earthing?
Even three IEEE Standards note what provides protection from typically
destructive surges - earth ground.

John Fields posts:

protection of the appliance ... isn't the common mode
voltage on the cable conductors, it's the voltage
between line and neutral.

No John. Voltage between line and neutral is near zero as a
destructive surge seeks earth ground (ie 8000 volts destructively) on
one or all of those wires. To promote grossly undersized and
obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors, then what is hyped to the
naive? Some irrelevant hot to neutral voltage - made irrelevant by
protection already inside appliances and also by a 'whole house'
protector.

Protection has always been about voltage between each wire and
earth. That protection also make voltage between hot and neutral
trivial. Effective surge protection means protection inside every
appliance is not overwhelmed. Protection not found in and not even
claimed by numeric specs for $25 or $150 plug-in protectors.

John - this is not rocket science. This was implemented even 100
years ago. After 100 years they are dumb and you know better? You
still don't get it. Why do telcos not do what you have posted?
Effective protection is required. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. Same principle even applies to lightning rods.
Why do you have a problem with such well proven principles?

John Fields posted:

Look at the subject line to learn why all your prattle about earth
ground is immaterial.
And view an earliest reply. Solution is not three wire

receptacles. Solution is earthing the breaker box to meet and exceed
post 1990 electrical code and one 'whole house' protector. Less
expensive than plug-in protectors. No three wire receptacles
required. Protection that is tens or 100 times less money per
protected appliance. Why do you promote plug-in protectors when even
the OP describes what plug-in protectors cannot be used on - two wire
receptacles? Why do you keep posting what is completely irrelevant to
the OP's question?

Orange County FL was suffering damage to emergency response
facilities. How was surge damage eliminated? Plug-in protectors? Of
course not. Emergency facilities needed protection - not a myth.
Orange county fixed the reason for surge damage - earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

A surge protector is only as effective as its earthing. How many
sources say this? Instead John Fields even confuses wire impedance
with characteristic impedance. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - where surge energy must be harmlessly dissipated.
Why do you repeat the myth promoted by retail salesmen? Where
effective protection is installed, protectors make that short (ie
'less than 10 foot') connection to a single point earth ground. Where
scams are promoted, well, how is that protector (that you promote)
acceptable on the OP's two wire receptacles? It's not.

On Jun 29, 9:36 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

But, what's important is that, at the appliance, the TVS clamps the
voltage between line and neutral to 150V regardless of the line
impedance.

Likewise, if another appliance at another outlet was protected by a
TVS then it would be irrelevant what common mode voltage existed on
either set, the voltage from line to neutral would still be limited to
150V.
...
Not really.

Since the conductors in the cable run parallel to each other the cable
is actually a transmission line and  will exhibit some characteristic
impedance.  Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristic_impedance
...  

Sigh...  You _still_ don't get it.

What matters, as far as protection of the appliance is concerned,
isn't the common mode voltage on the cable conductors, it's the
voltage between line and neutral.

Which is why TVSs are effective, since they clamp that voltage to some
safe maximum which the appliance can stand momentarily.
...

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom wrote:

On Jun 29, 8:43 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Nothing of any consequence.

So John,

Give it a rest. You aren't fooling anyone, You have never had anyone
agree with any of your lies or idiocy, so go away.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[w_tom]

On Jun 29, 8:43 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Nothing of any consequence.

So John, where is any professional citation that says characteristic
impedance is relevant? Nothing.

Where is this professional citation that says common mode surges -
what lightning creates - are not typically destructive surges?
Nothing.

Where is this professional citation that says a hot to neutral surge
is not eliminated (reduced) by that same one 'whole house' protector?
Nothing.

Why is a peer reviewed front page article in a highly regarded
electrical engineering publication not relevant? Its title:
"Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". John
somehow knows industry professionals are wrong?

You have even confused characteristic impedance with wire impedance.
Why do you ignore wire impedance and discuss irrelevant wire
resistance? Your denials are based only in insults?

Why does every telco install 'whole house' protectors and not waste
money on plug-in protectors? For better protection, why do telcos
locate protectors distant from electronics - up to 50 meters? For
better protection, why do telcos install even better earthing and
connect 'whole house' protectors as short as practicable to that
earthing? John says telcos are also loony?

And where is that plug-in protector spec that claims protection?
Oh. No plug-in protector will list protection from each type of
surge. But you know that plug-in protector is effective?

Where does John Fields post a solution for the OP whose building
only has two wire receptacles? You provide no useful answers.

OP's solution is simple, more effective, and less expensive than
plug-in protectors. Similar to a solution implemented by all telcos,
commercial broadcasters, rocket launch facilities, and military
bases. A 'whole house' protector with breaker box earthing is
upgraded to post 1990 National Electrical Code standards. Complete
surge protection installed for about $1 per protected appliance.

Why does John Fields recommend using three wire power strip
protectors on two wire receptacles? How do John's insults prove
science or assist the OP? John even denies lightning creates common
mode surges. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as
noted by numerous above and responsible sources. Meanwhile, the OP
cannot use plug-in protectors. His best solution is the standard
solution used everywhere when surge damage is not acceptable.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net>
wrote:

On Jun 30, 4:06 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Well, I see from your outburst that you've been confounded by my
excellent ASCII art schematics and my lucid explanation of why and how
two-wire plug-in TVS-basedsurgesuppressors can be used to good
advantage in premises without (or with unused) earth grounding.
That is, after all, the topic as indicated by the subject line.

Every responsible source says the grounding must exist.

---

<snipped off-topic, irrelevant claptrap>

Regardless of what your "responsible" sources say, situations exist
where grounding is impossible and the subject line of this thread:

"Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is not
available?"

should indicate to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that it asks
for solutions for surge protection where no ground is available.

Your inane insistence on quoting references which require a ground is,
therefore, not only off topic but also stupid.

As I suggested earlier, if you want to discuss whole house protection
where earth grounding is available you would do well to start a new
thread addressing that topic.

Otherwise, perhaps you'd care to grace us with some on-topic solutions
or, at the very least, since you seem to be so intent on proving me
wrong, a technical refutation of my position with respect to the
subject at hand.

JF

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net
wrote:

On Jun 30, 4:06 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Well, I see from your outburst that you've been confounded by my
excellent ASCII art schematics and my lucid explanation of why and how
two-wire plug-in TVS-basedsurgesuppressors can be used to good
advantage in premises without (or with unused) earth grounding.
That is, after all, the topic as indicated by the subject line.

Every responsible source says the grounding must exist.

---

snipped off-topic, irrelevant claptrap

Regardless of what your "responsible" sources say, situations exist
where grounding is impossible and the subject line of this thread:

"Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is not
available?"

should indicate to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that it asks
for solutions for surge protection where no ground is available.

Your inane insistence on quoting references which require a ground is,
therefore, not only off topic but also stupid.

As I suggested earlier, if you want to discuss whole house protection
where earth grounding is available you would do well to start a new
thread addressing that topic.

Otherwise, perhaps you'd care to grace us with some on-topic solutions
or, at the very least, since you seem to be so intent on proving me
wrong, a technical refutation of my position with respect to the
subject at hand.

JF

John, _wacko_ tom has been trolling this same crap for years. He
doesn't want answers, he wants to argue.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 10:12:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT), w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net
wrote:

On Jun 30, 4:06 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Well, I see from your outburst that you've been confounded by my
excellent ASCII art schematics and my lucid explanation of why and how
two-wire plug-in TVS-basedsurgesuppressors can be used to good
advantage in premises without (or with unused) earth grounding.
That is, after all, the topic as indicated by the subject line.

Every responsible source says the grounding must exist.

---

snipped off-topic, irrelevant claptrap

Regardless of what your "responsible" sources say, situations exist
where grounding is impossible and the subject line of this thread:

"Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is not
available?"

should indicate to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that it asks
for solutions for surge protection where no ground is available.

Your inane insistence on quoting references which require a ground is,
therefore, not only off topic but also stupid.

As I suggested earlier, if you want to discuss whole house protection
where earth grounding is available you would do well to start a new
thread addressing that topic.

Otherwise, perhaps you'd care to grace us with some on-topic solutions
or, at the very least, since you seem to be so intent on proving me
wrong, a technical refutation of my position with respect to the
subject at hand.

JF


John, _wacko_ tom has been trolling this same crap for years. He
doesn't want answers, he wants to argue.

---
That's fine with me!

It's a slow day and I don't mind slapping the likes of him around at
all!

JF

 

[bud--]

w_tom wrote:

On Jun 30, 4:06 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Well, I see from your outburst that you've been confounded by my
excellent ASCII art schematics and my lucid explanation of why and how
two-wire plug-in TVS-basedsurgesuppressors can be used to good
advantage in premises without (or with unused) earth grounding.
That is, after all, the topic as indicated by the subject line.

No surge
protection stops or absorbs the common mode surge - surge that
typically causes appliance damage.
..

Never explained - how does a common mode surge on incoming power lines
get past the N-G bond required in all US services.

And neither service panel or plug-in suppressors protect by "stopping"
or "absorbing".
..

As Bud's NIST states:
..

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

Page 42 Figure 8 - a
protector too far from earth ground and too close to appliances
therefore leaves surge energy earthed 8000 volts destructivley through
an adjacent TV.
..

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." What a radical idea.
..

No way around what a protector does. Either it stops (absorbs)
surge energy OR is diverts (shunts, connects, clamps) that surge
energy into earth.
..

The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The
guide explains they do not work primarily by earthing. And they
certainly do not work by stopping or absorbing.
..

Who should the OP believe? John Fields? Or Sun Microsystems ...
and the IEEE, NIST
..

The OP should believe the IEEE and NIST. Both say plug-in suppressors
are effective.
..

John do you really believe a hundred joules in a UPS or power strip
will stop (by absorbing) lightning energy?
..

w_’s religious blinders prevent him from understanding how plug-in
suppressors work. It is not by stopping or absorbing.

And repeating:
"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."

One-hundred Joules is a red herring. Plug-in suppressors with very high
ratings are readily available at low cost..
..

No problem.
Electronics routinely withstand 600 volt transients without damage - a
standard from 1970.
..

Provide that standard.
..

Protection is about earthing.
..

The IEEE guide explains that for plug-in suppressors, earthing occurs
elsewhere in the system, not primarily through the suppressor.


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

Why doesn’t anyone on a science newsgroup agree with you w_???

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."
– How can SquareD be a "responsible" company when there is no "spec that
lists each type of surge and protection from that surge".
- 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?

Why no answers w_???

--
bud--

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John, _wacko_ tom has been trolling this same crap for years. He
doesn't want answers, he wants to argue.

---
That's fine with me!

It's a slow day and I don't mind slapping the likes of him around at
all!

He is either the dumbest piece of crap to ever access the Internet,
or the most persistent troll. He doesn't understand anything about
anything, including his on cites. It has all been explained to him, time
after time, but he refuses to admit that he's wrong.

Just keep a 6' pry bar handy to get your boot out of his ass when you
kick him! He isn't worth losing a good boot!


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 1, 9:17 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Regardless of what your "responsible" sources say, situations exist
where grounding is impossible and the subject line of this thread:

"Surge protectors to use with home electronics when grounding is not
available?"

No equipment grounding is available at OP's receptacles. That is
code acceptable. Not acceptable would be a missing earth ground at
breaker box. Breaker box ground must be installed to have any surge
protection (transistor safety) AND must exist to meet code
requirements for human safety. No way around that necessary earth
ground.

John, your ASCII diagrams were lucid. You did try to explain how
you thought surge protection works. But again, you did not even know
how MOVs perform and your calculation were for wire resistance. As a
result, what you thought was a potentially destructive surge - 8 amps
- is considered so trivial as to be made irrelevant by protection
already inside all appliances. Your calculations for 0.15 ohm
resistance (14 AWG wire) should have been using 130 ohms impedance for
that same wire.

Surge protecction is installed to earth 'tens of thousand' amp
surges without damage. Earth before surges can enter a building so
that protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Routine is
a direct lightning strike to incoming utility wires without damage.
After all, telcos will suffer maybe 100 such surges during every
thunderstorm - without Central Office damage. To have no damage, all
telco COs use 'whole house' protectors and an even better earth
ground. What makes the protector even better? Better earthing.

Even Bell System papers in the 1950s (before transistors existed)
would discuss this surge threat. OP's solution is the equivalent
solution found in transistorized COs today. Posted was a simplest
solution even for the OP and his 1950 vintage wiring - that also costs
less money.

No reason (for protection or for code requirements) to install
safety ground on any AC receptacles. Earthing electrode (required for
code requirements and surge protection) is essential for the
protection that the OP requests. No way around that necessary
earthing electrode and a short connection to one 'whole house'
protector.

Either the OP has only two wire receptacles and no protection (even
if using plug-in protectors). Or he has two wire receptacles, code
required earthing, one 'whole house' protector - and effective
protection. Those are his options.

As every responsible source notes, protection means:

... divert the power of the surge by providing a path
to ground for the surge energy. - Sun Microsystems
OR
... your surge protector will work by diverting the
surges to ground. - Bud's NIST citation.

Protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

 

[w_tom]

On Jul 1, 12:57 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

No surge protection stops or absorbs the common mode
surge - surge that typically causes appliance damage.

Never explained - how does a common mode surge on incoming power lines
get past the N-G bond required in all US services.
And neither service panel or plug-in suppressors protect by "stopping"
or "absorbing".
...
The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING
the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The
guide explains they do not work primarily by earthing.

Bud routinely repeats same allegations hoping that a lurker will
forget those answers were provided repeatedly. Yes, an AC electric
neutral wire is connected to breaker box earthing. A surge does not
enter on neutral wire. Both hot wires connect surges directly to
household appliances without any connection to earth. How are both
hot wires earthed and still provide electricity to appliances? The
100 year old solution: one 'whole house' protector connects each hot
wire to earth ground.

A protector acts like a switch: closes (connects) each hot wire to
earth ground only during surges. Now surge energy on all three AC
electric wires is earthed before entering a building. Earth is where
surge energy must be harmlessly dissipated. Then protection inside
all appliances is not overwhelmed. A protector within feet of earth
ground AND well separated from appliances provides best protection -
and for less money.

The IEEE guide says a plug-in protector will clamp to itself – also
called clamping to nothing. Surge energy remains; still seeking a
path to earth. IEEE guide also says plug-in protectors are an easiest
solution. What did Bud forget to mention? The easy solution can
create appliance damage. Page 42 Figure 8. IEEE guide shows why the
easiest solution may contribute to appliance damage. When an 'easy'
protector is too far from earth ground and too close to appliances,
then an 8000 volt surge destroyed an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
That energy must be earthed OR that energy will find destructive paths
to earth maybe via household appliances.

If you learn this, then profits diminish.

Both Bud citations, and Sun Microsystems, many IEEE Standards (IEEE
Red Book, Green Book, Emerald Book), US Air Force, QST (the ARRL), Dr
Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times, Schmidt Consulting,
Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a station engineer
from WXIA-TV, Dr Martzloff in his IEEE paper on the Upside-Down
house ... in every case, effective protectors have a short and
dedicated connection to single point earth ground. One 'whole house'
protector is not 100% protection. From the IEEE Standard:

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.

Why would anyone waste $25 or $150 per appliance on protectors that
may contribute to adjacent appliance damage? Even with plug-in
protectors, a 'whole house' protector is still necessary. Bud is
quick to define an "easiest solution" that provide profits. Bud
forgets what the IEEE demonstrates – the “easiest solution” can also
make appliance damage possible – Page 42 Figure 8.

Bud still does not provide plug-in protector numeric specs that
claim protection. An "easiest solution" does not protect from surges
that typically damage appliances. Did Bud again forget to post those
manufacturer numeric specs? Bud again refuses to post what does not
exist. Plug-in protectors – the “easiest solution” - do not claim
such protection in numeric specs. Did Bud also forget to mention that
part?

Bud even forgot what earths all three AC wires so that surges need
not damage any appliance. One properly earthed 'whole house'
protector. Bud does conveniently forget things that don't promote
plug-in protectors. Bud also forgets that a protector is only as
effective as its earth ground - where surge energy must be diverted.