Surge Protectors

[bud--]

Cydrome Leader wrote:

bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
*+-ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.

Do surge supressors exist for two-line phone connections?

WOuld it make sence to put a surge suppressor (what kind?) on my
incoming phone line? Neighbors have complained of fried modems, but
curiously I don't remember anyone ever telling mtheir computer got fried.
There should already be one inside the phone company's Network
Interface.
This applies to the US-

there are surge and lightning arrestors on phone lines where they enter a residence, and they're
grounded to something good, like a water pipe for instance.

It works great.
Some comments are somewhat specific to the US.

A couple of excellent sources of info on surge protection are:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
from the IEEE, and a much simpler one from the US-NIST
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

With a strong surge current to the earthing electrode, the "ground" for
the building can rise thousands of volts above "absolute" earth
potential. You want power and phone (and cable) wires rise together.
That requires a short ground wire from the telephone entrance protector
to the earthing system at the power service.

Now if lightning surges hit your power then what happens?

a cheapo-garbage "surge protector" like a power strip or the like will use MOVs to short out line
to neutral or even line to ground.

What happens if you throw a short across line to ground and can somehow clamp it to 600 volts or
whatever? The numbers are made up, but concept is the same.

well, your ground ends up at 300 volts above actual earth ground where that device is located. This
assumes your ground has the same impedance as the current carrying conductors.

So now your computer isn't really grounded, and floating at a potential way off what the phone like
is at, which worst case is being protected to a really solid ground, and not hundreds of feet or
wiring in your walls or whatever.

This is what blows up stuff like modems or devices that sit between your outlets and a phone line.
If you RTFM, any competent plug-in suppressor manufacturer should tell
you the phone wires have to go through the suppressor along with the
power wires. The voltage on all wires is clamped to the ground at the
suppressor. The voltage between the wires to the protected equipment is
safe for the protected equipment. All interconnected equipment needs to
be connected to the same suppressor, or external wires, like cable need
to go through the suppressor. This is clearly explained in the IEEE
guide starting pdf page 40, and shown in the examples at the end.
Plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

The best move is to install a service entrance surge supressor. They'll clamp surges at the best
ground you've got, with the lowest possible impedance, and at your ground/nuetral bonding point not
at your load where any attempts to do so are pretty useless across the extra fraction of an ohm.
Service panel suppressors are a real good idea. I would particularly use
one in high risk areas like Florida.

But from the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."

The NIST guide suggests most damage results from high voltage between
power and phone/cable wires. A service entrance suppressor does not, by
itself, limit that voltage.

You can easily test the resistance of your wiring at home too, and at the same time actually test
if your ground is solid.

connect some large resistive loads like halogen lamps, hairdryer, toaster oven or whatever at and
outlet. Measure the voltage drop when it's on. Break out the suicide cables and test that same
device using line to ground.

Depending on how your place is wired, you may find that under an actual load, your ground is really
awful. A volt meter won't pick crappy ground connections unless you are actually running real
current through it, so just reading 120 across hot and ground and saying "looks good" really
doesn't count.
May well be worthwhile. But even with a good earth connection the
building ground can rise thousands of volts.

Trying to suppress a surge with a $4 power strip connected though 5 junction boxes connected with
BX cable can really just be a big joke.
Neither the IEEE or NIST agree. Both guides say plug-in suppressors,
used correctly, are effective. Plug-in suppressors with very high
ratings are readily and cheaply available. In the US you should only buy
suppressors listed under UL1449. UL tests include a testing to at least
a minimum floor of protection. UPSs with surge protection should also
have UL1449 listing.
The lab NIST uses is not the typical home people live in.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The discussion is ordinary
surge suppressors
yes, ordinary surge surpressors. go to the store, pick one up and tell me
what you find inside of it.

I'd be pleased to counter with the CPSC recall notice.

Have you opened a "surge supressor" that the average person owns? It's
really surprising more don't catch on fire with no surges.

the construction quality tends to really really suck.

Even "name brand" items from tripp-lite are utter pieces of crap for the
most part. I've seen those catch fire, and these were made in USA ones.

I don't use or trust cheap-o power strips, at all, anywhere.
So don't get "cheap-o power strips". I use name brand suppressors with
high ratings.

UL1449 has, since 1998, required thermal discoinnects for overheating
MOVs. If a suppressor is UL1449 listed there is not much probability of
any problem. The author of the NIST guide has written "In fact, the
major cause of [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage,
rather than an unusually large surge". TOV is, for example, a
distribution wire falling onto the secondary wires that go to your house.
Again, if you really trust any UL markings on a power strip, go for it.

You do relized that UL doesn't even test most stuff, they sell stickers.
That's the business model. If you want to get more technical, they're
really a licensing company.
Complete nonsense.

In Europe equipment is mostly self-certified that it meets a standard.

UL tests almost all equipment it lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories
"the UL Mark requires independent third-party certification from UL"

Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.

Much of the UL listed equipment - fuses, circuit breakers, switches, ...
- are tested to comply with a standard that requires ?fitness for a
given use? and ?service life?.Ordinary wall switches used in power
wiring are tested by UL to remain functional after 30,000 operations at
or above their current and voltage rating. (The test is a lot more
involved than that.)

For surge suppressors, under UL1449 suppressors are tested by UL for
let-through voltage under specified conditions followed by a series of
20 surges followed by a let-through voltage test again. If the second
let-through voltage dropped significantly the MOVs are deteriorating. A
suppressor has to be functional through all these tests. Further tests
are of a nature that the suppressor might fail. It must fail safely. As
in my last post, overheating MOVs must be disconnected safely.

Incidentally, I was the technical end of a UL panel shop.

they have nothing at all to do with safety, at all, any more than iso 9001
has anything to do with quality.
UL listing of electrical equipment has everything to do with safety.

It's possible you have some decent surge protectors, but you're 0.01% of
the market.
UL1449 listed suppressors have been tested to pass at least a minimum
floor of protection. Anyone can buy well known name brands and get
suppressors with high ratings like I do.

Francois Martzloff was the surge expert at the US-NIST and wrote the
NIST guide. He also has many published papers on surges. I have included
some of his information in previous posts.

In one of his papers Martzloff has written "in fact, the major cause of
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge". TOV is, for instance, a distribution wire
dropping onto the wires that go to your house. (This is, of course, not
a surge.)

Martzloff also suggests in the NIST guide that most equipment damage is
from high voltage between power and cable/phone wires. (This is
illustrated in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.)

The IEEE is the largest association of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US. The IEEE guide (a link was provided) was written by
the IEEE committee that covers surge protection devices. The IEEE guide
says plug-in suppressors are effective. The only 2 examples of
protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors.

Similarly, surge expert Martzloff says in the NIST guide (link provided)
that plug-in suppressors are effective.

Where is your source that says otherwise.


So, did martzloff test this item?

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10184.html

The recall is for a power strip, which is not a surge suppressor.

It was tested by ETL - maybe a reason to not buy equipment that is not
tested by UL. Did ETL use the appropriate UL standard?

what about this, who tested these? they were wired with reverse polarity,
even a $3 outlet tester would have found that:

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04573.html

Wow - a recall from 2004.
It also does not cover any surge related components. So what? Companies
can make dumb mistakes.

how about energizer branded products, were these tested:

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04002.html

How devastating - a recall from 2003. Appears to be UPS parts, not surge
related parts.

The pictures of the case shows no UL label - a label should be visible.

That's just a random sampling.

Anecdotal evidence proves astrology and homeopathy work.

These products and pretty much anything
similar are the most poorly constructed and designed products ever made,
next to coffee pots that lack power switches.

I understand now. You are afraid of electricity. Avoid the nasty
electrical stuff - *any* of which may be recalled. Just move to the
country, use candles and outhouse and a horse. Maybe you could become Amish.

If you really expect some item that's about to burst into flames by just
being plugged in to protect anything when there's a power surge, you must
love living on the edge.

I don't expect any listed surge suppressor to burst into flames so I
guess I am not living on the edge.

UL listed suppressors made since 1998 have thermal disconnects to
disconnect overheating MOVs.

None of your horrifying links have anything to do with surge protection.

The 6 electrical engineers who actually know something about surge
protection and who have written 2 guides all say plug-in suppressors are
effective. They don't share your paranoia (but they aren't afraid of
electricity).

Where is your source that says plug-in suppressors are not effective?

And why does the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors in the only 2
examples of surge protection?

--
bud--

 

[Jeffrey D Angus]

Cydrome Leader wrote:

So, did martzloff test this item?

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10184.html

ETL Certified.

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04573.html

No listing of it on the Belkin home page, or in their
recall listings.

how about energizer branded products, were these tested:

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04002.html

Canadian UL

So, what point were trying to make about UL ?

Jeff



--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

 

[Cydrome Leader]

bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

Cydrome Leader wrote:
bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
Cydrome Leader wrote:
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
*+-even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
*+-ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.

Do surge supressors exist for two-line phone connections?

WOuld it make sence to put a surge suppressor (what kind?) on my
incoming phone line? Neighbors have complained of fried modems, but
curiously I don't remember anyone ever telling mtheir computer got fried.
There should already be one inside the phone company's Network
Interface.
This applies to the US-

there are surge and lightning arrestors on phone lines where they enter a residence, and they're
grounded to something good, like a water pipe for instance.

It works great.
Some comments are somewhat specific to the US.

A couple of excellent sources of info on surge protection are:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
from the IEEE, and a much simpler one from the US-NIST
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

With a strong surge current to the earthing electrode, the "ground" for
the building can rise thousands of volts above "absolute" earth
potential. You want power and phone (and cable) wires rise together.
That requires a short ground wire from the telephone entrance protector
to the earthing system at the power service.

Now if lightning surges hit your power then what happens?

a cheapo-garbage "surge protector" like a power strip or the like will use MOVs to short out line
to neutral or even line to ground.

What happens if you throw a short across line to ground and can somehow clamp it to 600 volts or
whatever? The numbers are made up, but concept is the same.

well, your ground ends up at 300 volts above actual earth ground where that device is located. This
assumes your ground has the same impedance as the current carrying conductors.

So now your computer isn't really grounded, and floating at a potential way off what the phone like
is at, which worst case is being protected to a really solid ground, and not hundreds of feet or
wiring in your walls or whatever.

This is what blows up stuff like modems or devices that sit between your outlets and a phone line.
If you RTFM, any competent plug-in suppressor manufacturer should tell
you the phone wires have to go through the suppressor along with the
power wires. The voltage on all wires is clamped to the ground at the
suppressor. The voltage between the wires to the protected equipment is
safe for the protected equipment. All interconnected equipment needs to
be connected to the same suppressor, or external wires, like cable need
to go through the suppressor. This is clearly explained in the IEEE
guide starting pdf page 40, and shown in the examples at the end.
Plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

The best move is to install a service entrance surge supressor. They'll clamp surges at the best
ground you've got, with the lowest possible impedance, and at your ground/nuetral bonding point not
at your load where any attempts to do so are pretty useless across the extra fraction of an ohm.
Service panel suppressors are a real good idea. I would particularly use
one in high risk areas like Florida.

But from the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."

The NIST guide suggests most damage results from high voltage between
power and phone/cable wires. A service entrance suppressor does not, by
itself, limit that voltage.

You can easily test the resistance of your wiring at home too, and at the same time actually test
if your ground is solid.

connect some large resistive loads like halogen lamps, hairdryer, toaster oven or whatever at and
outlet. Measure the voltage drop when it's on. Break out the suicide cables and test that same
device using line to ground.

Depending on how your place is wired, you may find that under an actual load, your ground is really
awful. A volt meter won't pick crappy ground connections unless you are actually running real
current through it, so just reading 120 across hot and ground and saying "looks good" really
doesn't count.
May well be worthwhile. But even with a good earth connection the
building ground can rise thousands of volts.

Trying to suppress a surge with a $4 power strip connected though 5 junction boxes connected with
BX cable can really just be a big joke.
Neither the IEEE or NIST agree. Both guides say plug-in suppressors,
used correctly, are effective. Plug-in suppressors with very high
ratings are readily and cheaply available. In the US you should only buy
suppressors listed under UL1449. UL tests include a testing to at least
a minimum floor of protection. UPSs with surge protection should also
have UL1449 listing.
The lab NIST uses is not the typical home people live in.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The discussion is ordinary
surge suppressors

yes, ordinary surge surpressors. go to the store, pick one up and tell me
what you find inside of it.

I'd be pleased to counter with the CPSC recall notice.

Have you opened a "surge supressor" that the average person owns? It's
really surprising more don't catch on fire with no surges.

the construction quality tends to really really suck.

Even "name brand" items from tripp-lite are utter pieces of crap for the
most part. I've seen those catch fire, and these were made in USA ones.

I don't use or trust cheap-o power strips, at all, anywhere.
So don't get "cheap-o power strips". I use name brand suppressors with
high ratings.

UL1449 has, since 1998, required thermal discoinnects for overheating
MOVs. If a suppressor is UL1449 listed there is not much probability of
any problem. The author of the NIST guide has written "In fact, the
major cause of [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage,
rather than an unusually large surge". TOV is, for example, a
distribution wire falling onto the secondary wires that go to your house.

Again, if you really trust any UL markings on a power strip, go for it.

You do relized that UL doesn't even test most stuff, they sell stickers.
That's the business model. If you want to get more technical, they're
really a licensing company.

Complete nonsense.

In Europe equipment is mostly self-certified that it meets a standard.

UL tests almost all equipment it lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories
"the UL Mark requires independent third-party certification from UL"

Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.

Much of the UL listed equipment - fuses, circuit breakers, switches, ...
- are tested to comply with a standard that requires ?fitness for a
given use? and ?service life?.Ordinary wall switches used in power
wiring are tested by UL to remain functional after 30,000 operations at
or above their current and voltage rating. (The test is a lot more
involved than that.)

For surge suppressors, under UL1449 suppressors are tested by UL for
let-through voltage under specified conditions followed by a series of
20 surges followed by a let-through voltage test again. If the second
let-through voltage dropped significantly the MOVs are deteriorating. A
suppressor has to be functional through all these tests. Further tests
are of a nature that the suppressor might fail. It must fail safely. As
in my last post, overheating MOVs must be disconnected safely.

Incidentally, I was the technical end of a UL panel shop.


they have nothing at all to do with safety, at all, any more than iso 9001
has anything to do with quality.

UL listing of electrical equipment has everything to do with safety.


It's possible you have some decent surge protectors, but you're 0.01% of
the market.

UL1449 listed suppressors have been tested to pass at least a minimum
floor of protection. Anyone can buy well known name brands and get
suppressors with high ratings like I do.

Francois Martzloff was the surge expert at the US-NIST and wrote the
NIST guide. He also has many published papers on surges. I have included
some of his information in previous posts.

In one of his papers Martzloff has written "in fact, the major cause of
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge". TOV is, for instance, a distribution wire
dropping onto the wires that go to your house. (This is, of course, not
a surge.)

Martzloff also suggests in the NIST guide that most equipment damage is
from high voltage between power and cable/phone wires. (This is
illustrated in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.)

The IEEE is the largest association of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US. The IEEE guide (a link was provided) was written by
the IEEE committee that covers surge protection devices. The IEEE guide
says plug-in suppressors are effective. The only 2 examples of
protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors.

Similarly, surge expert Martzloff says in the NIST guide (link provided)
that plug-in suppressors are effective.

Where is your source that says otherwise.

So, did martzloff test this item?

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10184.html

what about this, who tested these? they were wired with reverse polarity,
even a $3 outlet tester would have found that:

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04573.html

how about energizer branded products, were these tested:

http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04002.html

That's just a random sampling. These products and pretty much anything
similar are the most poorly constructed and designed products ever made,
next to coffee pots that lack power switches.

If you really expect some item that's about to burst into flames by just
being plugged in to protect anything when there's a power surge, you must
love living on the edge.

 

[westom]

On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:

Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.

Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
protector have to be working after all tests? No. Protector can fail
- provide no protection. But if that failure does not create a fire
threat, then the protector is UL Listed. UL is not about surge
protection. UL is only about human safety.

And still UL Listed protector were causing house fires. So now we
have UL 1449 3rd edition. More attempts to keep undersized protectors
from causing house fires.

Better is to earth a properly sized protector so that even direct
lightning strikes do not cause protector failure.

Do plug-in protectors do effective surge protection? Even the cited
Dr Martzloff says no. Plug-in protectors, in some cases can
contribute to nearby appliance damage which is what bud's IEEE
brochure shows on page 42 Figure 8:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
It shows a nearby protector (located too far from earth ground)
earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. UL
does not care. UL's only concern is that protector does not cause a
house fire.

From Dr Martzloff's 1994 IEEE paper on plug-in (point of connection)
protectors - his first conclusion says a protector can even contribute
to nearby appliance damage:

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.

What do informed homeowners do so that plug-in protectors do not
cause house fires? Earth one 'whole house' protector. Then expensive
Tripplite, et al plug-in protectors are protected.

 

[bud--]

westom wrote:

On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.

Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
protector have to be working after all tests? No.

westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
uses google groups to look for "surge".

As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
later tests that determine they fail safely.

So does a suppressor have to be working after *all* the tests? No. The
later tests are intended to cause failure.

Does it have to successfully suppress the test surges and remain fully
functional? Yes.

And still UL Listed protector were causing house fires. So now we
have UL 1449 3rd edition. More attempts to keep undersized protectors
from causing house fires.

In westom's mind plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and service
panel suppressors have mega-ratings.

In fact:
- UL listed suppressors have been tested to provide at least a floor
level of protection.
- As I said previously, the amount of energy absorbed in a MOV in a
plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small, even with a very strong strike
to a utility pole behind a house (information from Martzloff technical
papers).
- Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily and cheaply
available.

UL standards are constantly changing. Where is the massive record of
house fires?

Better is to earth a properly sized protector so that even direct
lightning strikes do not cause protector failure.

westom's objection to plug-in suppressors is really based on his belief
that all protection must directly involve earthing the surge. Since
plug-in suppressors protect primarily by clamping, not earthing, westom
cannot figure out how they work. Perhaps because his earthing belief
makes him look like even more of a nut, it is almost nonexistent in this
thread.

Do plug-in protectors do effective surge protection? Even the cited
Dr Martzloff says no.

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

Plug-in protectors, in some cases can
contribute to nearby appliance damage which is what bud's IEEE
brochure shows on page 42 Figure 8:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
It shows a nearby protector (located too far from earth ground)
earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV.

If poor westom could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE
surge guide says in this example:

- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service
that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO
protection.

It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example
damages the second TV.

From Dr Martzloff's 1994 IEEE paper on plug-in (point of connection)
protectors - his first conclusion says a protector can even contribute
to nearby appliance damage:

westom forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same paper:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."

At the time of the paper, 1994, multiport surge suppressors (including
ports for phone and cable) were just a concept or very new. The whole
point of his paper was that multiport suppressors were effective
protecting, for example, TVs with both power and cable connection.

On alt.engineering.electrical, westom similarly misconstrued the views
of Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff coauthor, and provoked a response from an
electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in
protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."

Trying to twist sources to say the opposite of what they really say is a
favorite tactic.

What do informed homeowners do so that plug-in protectors do not
cause house fires? Earth one 'whole house' protector.

A service panel suppressor is a good idea.
But again quoting from NIST surge guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."

A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
cable/phone wires, which the NIST surge guide suggests is the cause of
most equipment damage.


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

Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective - there are none.

Simple questions that have never been answered:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?

--
bud--

 

[GregS]

In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17907@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

westom wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.

Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
protector have to be working after all tests? No.

westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
uses google groups to look for "surge".

As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
later tests that determine they fail safely.

I have been thinking of putting a main surpressor in the breaker box.
When I moved in the power company said there was one
installed in the meter, and if I wanted to continue using
it it would cost so much per month. i didn't of course, but I wonder
if they really took it out. ??

I put a couple in in the old house on the telephone lines
to ground on the main wooden panel after I destroyed a modem.
Never had any know hits after that though.

just last week guy here said his surge surpressor exploded as a hit
happened outside the house. His TV still works.


greg

 

[bud--]

GregS wrote:

In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17907@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
westom wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.
Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
protector have to be working after all tests? No.
westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
uses google groups to look for "surge".

As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
later tests that determine they fail safely.


I have been thinking of putting a main surpressor in the breaker box.
When I moved in the power company said there was one
installed in the meter, and if I wanted to continue using
it it would cost so much per month. i didn't of course, but I wonder
if they really took it out. ??

The utility suppressors I have seen are between the meter and meter box
- there is a spacer between them.

I would rather have my own service panel suppressor. The IEEE surge
guide has advice for ratings and installation.

They solve many, but not all, surge problems. They are a particularly
good idea in high lightning areas.

I put a couple in in the old house on the telephone lines
to ground on the main wooden panel after I destroyed a modem.
Never had any know hits after that though.

As I have said several times, the NIST surge guide suggests that most
equipment damage is likely caused by high voltage between power and
phone/cable wires.

In the US, telephone companies are almost always very good about
installing an entrance protector that clamps the voltage on the phone
wires to a ground terminal. The ground terminal needs to connect with a
short wire to the ground at the electrical service. With a large surge
the house ground can rise thousands of volts above absolute ground. You
want all wiring - power, phone, cable, satellite - to rise together.
This is stressed in the IEEE surge protection guide - very good
information. A cable entry ground block also has to connect with a short
wire - cable companies are not nearly as good as phone companies doing
this right. And satellite entry ground blocks also have to connect to
the power grounding system. Satellite installations can be even worse.

As I said previously, if you use a plug-in suppressor all external wires
to a set of protected equipment need to go through the suppressor -
power, phone, cable, .... This prevents high voltage between the wires
to the protected equipment.

--
bud--

 

[GregS]

In article <98a90$4c0fd58a$cde8d56a$23427@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

GregS wrote:
In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17907@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
westom wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.
Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
protector have to be working after all tests? No.
westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
uses google groups to look for "surge".

As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
later tests that determine they fail safely.


I have been thinking of putting a main surpressor in the breaker box.
When I moved in the power company said there was one
installed in the meter, and if I wanted to continue using
it it would cost so much per month. i didn't of course, but I wonder
if they really took it out. ??

The utility suppressors I have seen are between the meter and meter box
- there is a spacer between them.

I would rather have my own service panel suppressor. The IEEE surge
guide has advice for ratings and installation.

They solve many, but not all, surge problems. They are a particularly
good idea in high lightning areas.


I put a couple in in the old house on the telephone lines
to ground on the main wooden panel after I destroyed a modem.
Never had any know hits after that though.

As I have said several times, the NIST surge guide suggests that most
equipment damage is likely caused by high voltage between power and
phone/cable wires.

In the US, telephone companies are almost always very good about
installing an entrance protector that clamps the voltage on the phone
wires to a ground terminal. The ground terminal needs to connect with a
short wire to the ground at the electrical service. With a large surge
the house ground can rise thousands of volts above absolute ground. You
want all wiring - power, phone, cable, satellite - to rise together.
This is stressed in the IEEE surge protection guide - very good
information. A cable entry ground block also has to connect with a short
wire - cable companies are not nearly as good as phone companies doing
this right. And satellite entry ground blocks also have to connect to
the power grounding system. Satellite installations can be even worse.

As I said previously, if you use a plug-in suppressor all external wires
to a set of protected equipment need to go through the suppressor -
power, phone, cable, .... This prevents high voltage between the wires
to the protected equipment.

I have to recheck my cable for ground. I still have a telephone to the house unused,
and an old unused Comcast phone box unused. Also the battery power
supply backup which I am going to use for my house emergency
lighting.

I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
This is a basic model..................
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search

greg

 

[GregS]

In article <huon5i$sut$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:

In article <98a90$4c0fd58a$cde8d56a$23427@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
GregS wrote:
In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17907@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:


As I said previously, if you use a plug-in suppressor all external wires
to a set of protected equipment need to go through the suppressor -
power, phone, cable, .... This prevents high voltage between the wires
to the protected equipment.


I have to recheck my cable for ground. I still have a telephone to the house
unused,
and an old unused Comcast phone box unused. Also the battery power
supply backup which I am going to use for my house emergency
lighting.

I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
This is a basic model..................
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search

I always thought local surpressors were good to protect from motorized equipment
and keep things common mode and to ground.

I might have a lack of available breakers, and I am thinking I
allready have an outlet near the box on one 120 side. i might put in another outlet on the other
120 side and use plug in replacable MOV's. I don't see much difference in
using separate breakers vs protecting lines allready in use.

greg

 

[Jeffrey D Angus]

GregS wrote:

I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that
are cheap. I found one for $30 and might get a discounted
price. This is a basic model..................
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search

Well, you can't say inexpensive and Grainger in the same sentence.
You'll find the exact same products elsewhere for 25-50% less.

Jeff

--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954

http://www.stay-connect.com

 

[bud--]

GregS wrote:

In article <huon5i$sut$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
In article <98a90$4c0fd58a$cde8d56a$23427@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
GregS wrote:
In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17907@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

As I said previously, if you use a plug-in suppressor all external wires
to a set of protected equipment need to go through the suppressor -
power, phone, cable, .... This prevents high voltage between the wires
to the protected equipment.

I have to recheck my cable for ground. I still have a telephone to the house
unused,
and an old unused Comcast phone box unused. Also the battery power
supply backup which I am going to use for my house emergency
lighting.

I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
This is a basic model..................
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search

I wouldn't call $30 for a service panel suppressor expensive. The 2
plug-in suppressors I am using cost about $30 each. You appear to be
looking for Cydrome's "cheap-o" suppressors.

The IEEE surge guide recommends - for homes - ratings of 20-70kA, or for
high lightning areas 40-120kA. All the MOVs in the 2 plug-in
suppressors I have are rated higher than the Grainger suppressor. I have
never heard of ICM.

I always thought local surpressors were good to protect from motorized equipment
and keep things common mode and to ground.

Motors are not a particular surge threat in a home. The #1 hazard is
lighting. The #2 threat is normal and abnormal utility switching
operations, including switching power factor correction capacitors.
Equipment, in general, has somewhere over 600-800V immunity from surges
(from Martzloff).

I might have a lack of available breakers, and I am thinking I
allready have an outlet near the box on one 120 side. i might put in another outlet on the other
120 side and use plug in replacable MOV's. I don't see much difference in
using separate breakers vs protecting lines allready in use.

If I am reading you right, you want to protect the service with plug-in
suppressors. Bad idea. I wrote earlier that the impedance of wire at
surge frequencies greatly limits the current. There is a high voltage
drop along the wire. The clamp voltage at the panel will be far higher
than the voltage at the suppressor. This is also an issue for panel
mounted suppressors. See the section on lead length in the IEEE surge
guide starting pdf page 31.

If plug-in suppressors have a very short branch circuit length to the
panel they should have high ratings.

I believe at least some service panel suppressors say to wire them to
existing circuits/circuit breakers.

--
bud--

 

[Grant]

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:36:52 -0500, bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

westom wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.

Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
protector have to be working after all tests? No.

westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
uses google groups to look for "surge".

As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
later tests that determine they fail safely.

Do they fail to known state? Open or short? App. note showed a test
rig with individually fused varistors, so I'm thinking they fail shorted?

Grant.
--
http://bugs.id.au/

 

[Jim Yanik]

zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote in
news:huogl7$rhq$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:

In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17907@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
westom wrote:
On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not
practical to test whether they work.

Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
protector have to be working after all tests? No.

westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because
he uses google groups to look for "surge".

As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
later tests that determine they fail safely.


I have been thinking of putting a main surpressor in the breaker box.
When I moved in the power company said there was one
installed in the meter, and if I wanted to continue using
it it would cost so much per month. i didn't of course, but I wonder
if they really took it out. ??

I put a couple in in the old house on the telephone lines
to ground on the main wooden panel after I destroyed a modem.
Never had any know hits after that though.

just last week guy here said his surge surpressor exploded as a hit
happened outside the house. His TV still works.


greg

I've had power supplies in TEK pro video equipment have the MOV blown apart
and the line fuse blown after a lightning strike,and the PS work after
replacing the fuse and MOV. I had one TSG-170A burn a hole in the PCB from
the MOV failing,and after filling in the hole and a new MOV and fuse,the PS
worked.

Central Florida gets a lot of lightning strikes.
We're the Capital of the US in that respect.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[GregS]

In article <73eee$4c100259$cde8d5ab$12056@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

GregS wrote:
In article <huon5i$sut$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
In article <98a90$4c0fd58a$cde8d56a$23427@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
GregS wrote:
In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17907@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

As I said previously, if you use a plug-in suppressor all external wires
to a set of protected equipment need to go through the suppressor -
power, phone, cable, .... This prevents high voltage between the wires
to the protected equipment.

I have to recheck my cable for ground. I still have a telephone to the house
unused,
and an old unused Comcast phone box unused. Also the battery power
supply backup which I am going to use for my house emergency
lighting.

I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
This is a basic model..................
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search

I wouldn't call $30 for a service panel suppressor expensive. The 2
plug-in suppressors I am using cost about $30 each. You appear to be
looking for Cydrome's "cheap-o" suppressors.

I said I found a cheap one.
I found another model with a lot higher rating. Most surpressors sold are almost $200.
It seems while searching, there is a trend to upgrade to higher current ratings.

But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??

http://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-TRAVELER-Suppressor-Transformers/dp/B00006B83F

The IEEE surge guide recommends - for homes - ratings of 20-70kA, or for
high lightning areas 40-120kA. All the MOVs in the 2 plug-in
suppressors I have are rated higher than the Grainger suppressor. I have
never heard of ICM.


I always thought local surpressors were good to protect from motorized
equipment
and keep things common mode and to ground.

Motors are not a particular surge threat in a home. The #1 hazard is
lighting. The #2 threat is normal and abnormal utility switching
operations, including switching power factor correction capacitors.
Equipment, in general, has somewhere over 600-800V immunity from surges
(from Martzloff).


I might have a lack of available breakers, and I am thinking I
allready have an outlet near the box on one 120 side. i might put in another
outlet on the other
120 side and use plug in replacable MOV's. I don't see much difference in
using separate breakers vs protecting lines allready in use.

If I am reading you right, you want to protect the service with plug-in
suppressors. Bad idea. I wrote earlier that the impedance of wire at
surge frequencies greatly limits the current. There is a high voltage
drop along the wire. The clamp voltage at the panel will be far higher
than the voltage at the suppressor. This is also an issue for panel
mounted suppressors. See the section on lead length in the IEEE surge
guide starting pdf page 31.

If plug-in suppressors have a very short branch circuit length to the
panel they should have high ratings.

I believe at least some service panel suppressors say to wire them to
existing circuits/circuit breakers.

 

[bud--]

Grant wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:36:52 -0500, bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:

As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
later tests that determine they fail safely.

Do they fail to known state? Open or short? App. note showed a test
rig with individually fused varistors, so I'm thinking they fail shorted?

Normal failure mode is that as MOVs deteriorate (past the defined end of
life) the voltage at which they start to conduct goes down until they
conduct on 'normal' voltage. That produces heat and they go into thermal
runaway and wind up as a low resistance or short. I would expect this is
after (not during) a surge. The thermal disconnects required in UL1449
listed suppressors disconnect MOVs when they fail. If this is a fuse I
would expect it is in close proximity to the MOV.

The IEEE surge guide shows that for plug-in suppressors, the protected
load can be connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected if MOVS fail.
Or the protected load can be connected to the incoming line and remain
powered if the MOVs are disconnected. I want the former.

--
bud--

 

[GregS]

In article <6bd56ef5-dfe7-4ef6-be9a-95a6fdca7e04@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, westom <westom1@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 10, 9:10 am, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??

How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that
energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose.

Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric
specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if
connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth
ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler-
Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.

It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite
numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are
typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb
surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those
specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
provide those specs.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why
the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is
also the superior solution

OK, I can't find it on their website.

Read here. You say hundreds of thousands of Joules.
This one has 100KA at 840 Joules

This is twice the amperage as you state.

http://www.drillspot.com/products/423212/Supco_SCMPLUS_Surge_Protector

grge

 

[GregS]

In article <hur1gf$daq$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:

In article <6bd56ef5-dfe7-4ef6-be9a-95a6fdca7e04@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
westom <westom1@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:10 am, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??

How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that
energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose.

Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric
specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if
connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth
ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler-
Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.

It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite
numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are
typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb
surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those
specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
provide those specs.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why
the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is
also the superior solution

OK, I can't find it on their website.

Read here. You say hundreds of thousands of Joules.
This one has 100KA at 840 Joules

The little bitty Tripplite laptop protector is over a 1000 Joules.

This is twice the amperage as you state.

http://www.drillspot.com/products/423212/Supco_SCMPLUS_Surge_Protector

grge

 

[westom]

On Jun 9, 2:40 pm, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:

I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
This is a basic model..................
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search

So that high voltage differences do not exist between phone and
electric lines, everything must connect short to earth. Bud's job is
to promote plug-in protectors. So he will say anything to avoid that
reality. Every responsible source discusses earth as the means of
eliminating those voltage differences.

To do that means the protector must connect even direct lightning
strikes harmlessly to earth. To connect 20,000 amps (a typical
lightning strike) harmlessly to earth means, at minimum, a 50,000 amps
protector. At 24,000 amps, you would need two of those Grainger
protectors just to do a minimum.

More responsible companies make these 'whole house' protector
including General Electric, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Keison, and
Square D. A Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector sells in Lowes and
Home Depot for less than $50. All names that any 'guy' knows for
their better reputations.

Surge protection is about connecting at least 50,000 amps to earth.
That is the only way to above voltage differences inside the house.
Only then will the telephone "installed for free" protector, if also
connected to the same earthing electrode, also be effective.

Notice how your dimmer switches fail hourly as surges from the
refrigerator destroy it. Oh. It doesn't. Surges created by motors
are the myth that Bud promotes so that you will spend $25 or $150 on
protectors that also sell for $7 in the grocery store.

View that Tripplite protector. Where is the dedicated wire to make
that short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to earth? It does not
exist. Ask bud for the manufacturer spec that claims protection from
each type of surge. He works in this business. And cannot provide
those specs. Why? The Tripplite does not claim to protect from
typically destructive surges. It claims to protect from mythical
motor created surges. How often is your refrigerator and vacuum
destroying dimmer switches, Gucci’s. and clock radios? Never?
Because that protector is protecting from a myth.

Your concern is the rare surge. Either it dissipates harmlessly
outside the building. Or it is inside hunting for earth destructively
via appliances.

UL is only about human safety. Says nothing about whether a
protector is effective. bud will say anything to confuse that issue -
including insult. He will not even admit he is paid to promote plug-
in protectors - ie that Tripplite.

What will that Tripplite do when its hundreds of joules somehow
absorbs surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Explode.
Vaporize. Create a human safety problem also seen in these other
scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
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/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm
http://www.pennsburgfireco.com/fullstory.php?58339

Bud's job is to keep you from learning these realities. To avoid
those scary pictures, one install a 'whole house' protector. Similar
to the grainer.com protector - but more robust - to earth at least
50,000 amps. Plug-in protectors (ie that Tripplite) require
protection that only earthing and the 'whole house' protector can
provide.

BTW, if any appliance is generating surges, then one 'whole house'
protector also makes that surge irrelevant. Just another reason why
informed consumers install only one 'whole house' protector. Do not
install 20 or 50 plug-in protectors. Yes, to do what bud is claiming,
you must buy at least 20 plug-in protectors for all over house. You
must put them on the dishwasher, refrigerator, dimmer switches, one
for every powered smoke detector, etc. Or you do what the informed
do. Upgrade earthing and install only one 'whole house' protector.

Did bud forget to mention what his job is? Which is why he promotes
a $3 power strip containing ten cent protector part that sells for $25
or $150. Protecting those obscene profit margins are his job.

Earth a ‘whole house’ protector so that your protection costs are
only $1 per protected appliance. So that you really have protection
as it has always been done for over 100 years.

 

[westom]

On Jun 9, 6:13 pm, Grant <o...@grrr.id.au> wrote:

Do they fail to known state? Open or short? App. note showed a test
rig with individually fused varistors, so I'm thinking they fail shorted?

Any protector that fails means it did no protection. That failure
gets the naive to recommend that protector. Undersizing the power
strip protector promotes more sales.

Even MOV manufacturers list that catastrophic failure as completely
unacceptable. A condition that exceed Absolute Maximum Parameters. A
condition that creates these scary pictures that most every fire
department has seen with so many UL listed protectors that are still
too small for serious surges:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
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/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm
http://www.pennsburgfireco.com/fullstory.php?58339

How does it fail? Open - sometimes explosively. A thermal fuse
disconnects its protector circuit. Leave the appliance connected to
that surge – to fend for itself. To disconnect that protector circuit
as fast as possible. Then the naive recommend that protector.
Failure promotes sales.

Properly sized protector connected short to earth must not fail.
Earths even a direct lightning strike to earth - and remains
functional. But then nobody knew a surge existed? Then the naive
cannot recommend anything? That is the problem. An effective
solution means nobody knows a surge existed. Because the protector did
not completely fail. Therefore the naive do not recommend this
superior solution – earthing only one ‘whole house’ protector.

Protection is always - always - about where energy dissipates. Earth
one 'whole house' protector so that energy dissipates harmlessly in
earth. So that even direct lightning strikes do not damage the
protector. Where does energy dissipate? If permitted inside a
building, then surges must hunt for earth destructively via
appliances. That is why appliances are damaged. Energy finds earth
destructively via that appliance. Effective protection always means
that energy remains outside the building. And is absorbed harmlessly
by earth.

Unfortunately, a superior protector costs about $1 per protected
appliance. Does not have the obscene profit margins found in power
strip protectors - that are sometimes recommended because they failed.

It is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. You should not be discussing failure
open or shorted. You should be discussing why the protector - without
that short connection to earth - is a fire threat. Only profit
centers fail. Effective protectors do not fail during a surge. And
those protectors also costs tens or 100 times less money.

 

[westom]

On Jun 10, 9:10 am, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:

But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??

How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that
energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose.

Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric
specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if
connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth
ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler-
Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.

It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite
numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are
typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb
surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those
specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
provide those specs.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why
the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is
also the superior solution.