Whole house surge suppressors

[Charles Perry]

"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:dfee1359.0407080631.15edbf9a@posting.google.com...

Where is the major voltage difference between phone and AC electric if
both are properly earthed (a less than 10 foot connection) to same
earth ground? That is the point of that previously cited citation and
that application note for contractors. Not having all incoming
utilities earth 'less than 10 feet' to the single point earth ground
can cause voltage differences.

How long do you think the typical telephone run is in a house? And the
average length of a power circuit? Basically you end up with two huge
antennas. Think about it. Even if they are connected on one end, that does
not guarantee zero potential between them at the other end, particularly for
transient events such as lightning.

Charles Perry P.E.

 

[w_tom]

We knock down that field generated voltage with an NE-2 neon
glow lamp because the current associated with a long wire
antenna (ie telephone line) is quite small. I ask this
question repeatedly and never receive appropriate numbers.
Where is the massive current from a long wire antenna that is
not and cannot be earthed by telco's 'whole house'
protector? If the long telephone wire creates a massive
surge, then what are the numbers that overwhelm a protector?

Yes, long wires do create a voltage potential. But then
appliances already have substantial internal protection. And
the 'whole house' protector / single point earth ground system
designed for direct strikes makes lesser field generated
transients irrelevant. If we solve the direct strike problem,
then where are numbers for electromagnetic field generated
transients? Transient that is more powerful than a direct
strike?

In an IEEE paper, a long wire was stretched across the
building and subject to nearby lightning strikes. Something
on the order of 2000 volts appears on that wire. However if a
minimal load is placed across those 2000 volts, then voltage
all but disappears. Power in that 2000 volt open circuit wire
was minimal.

In another example, lightning struck a lightning rod.
Ground wire for that lightning rod was about 4 feet away from
a computer inside the building. Computer was completely
unaffected even though the direct lightning strike traveled
down the adjacent grounding wire. If lightning had such
destructive fields, then the computer should have (at minimum)
crashed.

I can appreciate the theory of electromagnetically generated
transients. Now lets see numbers applied to that theory.
Experience repeatedly says the direct strike is so
destructive. If nearby strikes were so destructive, then car
radios would often be damaged due to nearby strikes. Radios
designed to concentrate electromagnetic fields onto sensitive,
low voltage RF transistors are still not damaged by
lightning's electromagnetic fields.

Charles Perry wrote:

How long do you think the typical telephone run is in a house?
And the average length of a power circuit? Basically you end
up with two huge antennas. Think about it. Even if they are
connected on one end, that does not guarantee zero potential
between them at the other end, particularly for transient
events such as lightning.

Charles Perry P.E.

 

[Flea Ridden]

Why don't all manufacturers sell models like the Intermatic PanelGuard IG1300-2T-1C which protects phone
and cable inputs too?

If protection like this is not needed for phone and cable lines, why is it needed for A/C lines?


w_tom wrote:

Yes communication ports are easily damaged where they are used beyond
what they were designed for. Two examples are RS-232 ports and
outside speakers to a stereo amp. However first one must ask where
was the incoming and outgoing path for that damage.

Does a surge enter on communication port, damage that port, then
stop? Of course not. First a complete circuit is established from
cloud to earth. After that circuit is conducting electricity through
everything in that circuit, only then does something fail. If that
circuit is incoming and outgoing via appliance - a condition where
1000+ volts means the 'whole house protector system was defective -
then the solution is not to supplement the protector. The solution is
to fix the 'whole house' protector and its so critically necessary
earth ground.

As noted previously, many communication ports, to communicate with
devices not adjacent to the computer, already have effective internal
protection. For example NIC (ethernet) port is typically good for in
excess of 1000 volts. That is effective protection that can be
overwhelmed if the necessary 'whole house' protector system is not
installed. Most critical component of that system? Single point
earth ground.

Do we fix the single point ground or do we install 'point of use'
protectors on every of well over 100 appliances inside the house?
Remember, GFCIs in kitchen and bathroom, furnace, electronic timer
switch, dishwasher, clock radio, portable phone, microwave, alarm
system - are but a few of the electronics that each need a $15 or $50
protector if the 'whole house' system is not properly installed.
Better and less expensive to fix the 'whole house' (secondary)
protection system.

Charles Perry cites a paper that is a 'must read' for anyone who
needs surge protection:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/817g/spd-anthology/files/Enlightening.pdf
Same authors make same point in an applicaton note for builders and
other structural contractors - again must read:
http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/housing/surge/contractors.htm

In the Cozy Cabin example, simple principles of single point earth
ground are violated. Damage was made possible by human failure. The
Rambling Residence suffers from a similar failure. For example,
outside speakers are incoming wires that did not first connect to
single point ground before leaving the building. Where did that
transient enter or leave? The authors suspect induced electromagnetic
transient. However those wires easily could have been connected to a
direct surge by being buried, routed over conductive materials such as
concrete, or even in contact with another conductor - the tree. But
again, wires entered the building without first making contact to the
single point earth ground system. A blantant violation.

Other suspects could have contributed to the problem. Electrical
controls for the sprinkler system also complicate the installation of
a single point ground. Where or how did another structure - the
exterior pool - connect to building? Were building and pools
interconnected at a single point or did they too create ground loops?
Both pool and building should have been connected as if each were a
separate structure. If not, then the building could have ground loop
problems - no single point earth ground existed.

Earthing is the primary solution to surge protection which is also
why new homes should have Ufer or halo grounds. Grounding installed
bfore the foundation is even constructed. Purpose is to make earth
beneath equipotential - make the single point ground more effective.
Plug-in or 'point of use' protectors do not adaquately compensate for
a defective earthing system. Furthermore those plug-in protectors are
typically undersized and grossly overpriced - on the order of tens of
times more expensive per protected appliance.

That is the point of that nist.gov paper and so many other
industry professionals. Protectors are not the protection. Earthing
- the thing often forgotten because it is out of sight - is the most
important aspect of surge protection.

And we are only discussing secondary protection. What is the
primary protection? Examples of failures in a building's primary
protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Again, the less expensive and essential solution is earthing even in
the primary protector system.

"Charles Perry" <pipesandtobacco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2l2bmtF7im90U1@uni-berlin.de>...
The problem is not with the power supply, it is with the communications
ports. Nine out of ten failed appliances that we examine have failures
associated with the communications ports. If you don't provide the proper
TVSS that ties the power and communications references together, then you
will damage equipment.

http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/817g/spd-anthology/files/Enlightening.pdf

A very good paper that mentions this.

Charles Perry P.E.

 

[zxcvbob]

Flea Ridden wrote:

Why don't all manufacturers sell models like the Intermatic PanelGuard IG1300-2T-1C which protects phone
and cable inputs too?

If protection like this is not needed for phone and cable lines, why is it needed for A/C lines?

The phone company came out last weekend and repaired my dead phone
service; the *old* wires from the pole were worn through by the strain
relief clamp just before they disappeared through the hole in the siding
and connected to the 1950's terminal block. The reused the old wires,
cutting them off above the worn spot and he installed a fancy new
terminal box with a test plug. When he was connecting the old service
wires to the big terminals in the box (which I assume have gas discharge
tubes to protect against lightning), I noticed that it had a big heavy
ground terminal which he left unconnected. There was a 10 gauge ground
wire available (from the cable TV service) that he could have easily
tapped, but he said that ground connection in the box was only for
buried cable and not for overhead services.

So what good is the lightning protection with no path to ground? If the
servie wires are underground and have a metal sheath, that might be good
enough grounding. Otherwise, the ground terminal should be bonded to
the house grounding electrode system. Currently my phone line float,
unless they are grounded at the utility pole.

I think I need to open up that box and connect the ground, although I
will probably have to drill out the fancy screw they used to close the box.

Bob

 

[Bob Myers]

"Flea Ridden" <flea@flea.ridden> wrote in message
news:40EEAB78.60ABE261@flea.ridden...

Why don't all manufacturers sell models like the Intermatic PanelGuard
IG1300-2T-1C which protects phone
and cable inputs too?

The answer to just about ANY question that starts off along
the lines of "why doesn't someone sell...?" or "why doesn't
everyone make...?" is almost always some combination of
cost and market demand.

Bob M.

 

[Chris Lewis]

According to w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com>:

We knock down that field generated voltage with an NE-2 neon
glow lamp because the current associated with a long wire
antenna (ie telephone line) is quite small. I ask this
question repeatedly and never receive appropriate numbers.
Where is the massive current from a long wire antenna that is
not and cannot be earthed by telco's 'whole house'
protector? If the long telephone wire creates a massive
surge, then what are the numbers that overwhelm a protector?

You don't seem to understand RF frequencies very well. At the slew rates
and frequencies present in lightning strikes, you can very easily
have the ends of a few feet of wire at potential differences
of thousands of volts.

Heck, we routinely see people in this newsgroup using high impedance
DVMs reading dozens of volts on disconnected wires simply thru
inductive/capacitive effects from adjacent line power. Even the 62V
someone reported yesterday would be enough to destroy some semi-conductor
circuitry. Imagine what those voltages would be like during a nearby strike.

A house is equivalent to a coil, with many separate windings.
Some effectively grounded at both ends, some at one end, and some
not at all. A nearby lightning strike can induce thousands of volts
onto some of those "windings", grounded or otherwise.

Indeed, the field generated voltage that a NE-2 glowlamp shorts out
(60-90V) _is_ high enough to destroy some electronics.

Even if your house is protected with a whole-house filter, an induced
voltage on the house wiring can destroy "nearby" electronics _before_
the overvoltage even gets to the whole-house filter. Read up on
slew rates and cable impedance.

I can appreciate the theory of electromagnetically generated
transients. Now lets see numbers applied to that theory.
Experience repeatedly says the direct strike is so
destructive. If nearby strikes were so destructive, then car
radios would often be damaged due to nearby strikes. Radios
designed to concentrate electromagnetic fields onto sensitive,
low voltage RF transistors are still not damaged by
lightning's electromagnetic fields.

Radios use low impedance devices (ie: bipolar transistors) on their
front ends with lots of effective grounding for high voltage yet
low amperage transients (ie: shunt coils, caps etc). If they were
FET semiconductors with no upstream circuitry/shunts, it'd be a
whole different ballgame. They go poof if a dry cat brushes by
the antenna. Computer input circuitry is more like that than
radio input circuitry.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

 

[Bob in CT]

On 9 Jul 2004 18:01:24 GMT, Chris Lewis <clewis@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:

According to w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com>:
We knock down that field generated voltage with an NE-2 neon
glow lamp because the current associated with a long wire
antenna (ie telephone line) is quite small. I ask this
question repeatedly and never receive appropriate numbers.
Where is the massive current from a long wire antenna that is
not and cannot be earthed by telco's 'whole house'
protector? If the long telephone wire creates a massive
surge, then what are the numbers that overwhelm a protector?

You don't seem to understand RF frequencies very well. At the slew rates
and frequencies present in lightning strikes, you can very easily
have the ends of a few feet of wire at potential differences
of thousands of volts.

Heck, we routinely see people in this newsgroup using high impedance
DVMs reading dozens of volts on disconnected wires simply thru
inductive/capacitive effects from adjacent line power. Even the 62V
someone reported yesterday would be enough to destroy some semi-conductor
circuitry. Imagine what those voltages would be like during a nearby
strike.

A house is equivalent to a coil, with many separate windings.
Some effectively grounded at both ends, some at one end, and some
not at all. A nearby lightning strike can induce thousands of volts
onto some of those "windings", grounded or otherwise.

Indeed, the field generated voltage that a NE-2 glowlamp shorts out
(60-90V) _is_ high enough to destroy some electronics.

Even if your house is protected with a whole-house filter, an induced
voltage on the house wiring can destroy "nearby" electronics _before_
the overvoltage even gets to the whole-house filter. Read up on
slew rates and cable impedance.

I can appreciate the theory of electromagnetically generated
transients. Now lets see numbers applied to that theory.
Experience repeatedly says the direct strike is so
destructive. If nearby strikes were so destructive, then car
radios would often be damaged due to nearby strikes. Radios
designed to concentrate electromagnetic fields onto sensitive,
low voltage RF transistors are still not damaged by
lightning's electromagnetic fields.

Radios use low impedance devices (ie: bipolar transistors) on their
front ends with lots of effective grounding for high voltage yet
low amperage transients (ie: shunt coils, caps etc). If they were
FET semiconductors with no upstream circuitry/shunts, it'd be a
whole different ballgame. They go poof if a dry cat brushes by
the antenna. Computer input circuitry is more like that than
radio input circuitry.

I think the best you can hope for is a strike that hits away from the
house. I think that a whole house surge suppressor is a solution in that
case. If a lightning strike hits too close to your house, then you're
toast, but that doesn't happen often. I bought a whole house surge
protector because the previous owners had a voltage surge that traveled
into the house and destroyed some stuff. From what I understand, it
wasn't a close lightning strike.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

 

[Chris Lewis]

According to Bob in CT <ctviggen.x@adelphia.net>:

I think the best you can hope for is a strike that hits away from the
house. I think that a whole house surge suppressor is a solution in that
case. If a lightning strike hits too close to your house, then you're
toast, but that doesn't happen often. I bought a whole house surge
protector because the previous owners had a voltage surge that traveled
into the house and destroyed some stuff. From what I understand, it
wasn't a close lightning strike.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with a whole house surge
suppressor. It'll usually do most of the job just fine on a _line_ strike.
Which is probably the most common.

On the other hand, a lightning strike hitting a tree a few hundred feet
away on the other side of the house from the panel is not all that uncommon,
and a whole-house suppressor will be much less help. Surge suppression
(even with relatively remote/poor grounding) _local_ to the device helps
more.

tom_w's obsession is that _only_ whole house surge suppressers work,
_only_ whole house surge suppressors _can_ work, (and dare I say it),
work _perfectly_ all the time, and all other devices are all-out fraud
and completely useless.

He doesn't understand that earth grounds (even UFERs spec'd well beyond
code req'ts) aren't (and often not even close to) zero resistance.

He doesn't understand about RF (lightning strikes have LOTs of RF in them),
rapid transients and slew rates. He's living in a DC world.

The real world just isn't quite like that.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

 

[Bob in CT]

On 9 Jul 2004 19:13:39 GMT, Chris Lewis <clewis@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:

According to Bob in CT <ctviggen.x@adelphia.net>:

I think the best you can hope for is a strike that hits away from the
house. I think that a whole house surge suppressor is a solution in
that
case. If a lightning strike hits too close to your house, then you're
toast, but that doesn't happen often. I bought a whole house surge
protector because the previous owners had a voltage surge that traveled
into the house and destroyed some stuff. From what I understand, it
wasn't a close lightning strike.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with a whole house
surge
suppressor. It'll usually do most of the job just fine on a _line_
strike.
Which is probably the most common.

On the other hand, a lightning strike hitting a tree a few hundred feet
away on the other side of the house from the panel is not all that
uncommon,
and a whole-house suppressor will be much less help. Surge suppression
(even with relatively remote/poor grounding) _local_ to the device helps
more.

tom_w's obsession is that _only_ whole house surge suppressers work,
_only_ whole house surge suppressors _can_ work, (and dare I say it),
work _perfectly_ all the time, and all other devices are all-out fraud
and completely useless.

He doesn't understand that earth grounds (even UFERs spec'd well beyond
code req'ts) aren't (and often not even close to) zero resistance.

He doesn't understand about RF (lightning strikes have LOTs of RF in
them),
rapid transients and slew rates. He's living in a DC world.

The real world just isn't quite like that.

Even as an electrical engineer, I run into that problem -- I tend to think
of 5 volts DC or maybe 120 volts AC but forget about the thousands of
volts a lightning hit can generate. Personally, everything of substance
in my home also has a surge suppressor, except for my amps which
supposedly have built in versions. And, I'm looking seriously at my home
grounding system, as I think it could be improved (the main panel ground
looks good, but the extra ground rod for the phone and cable doesn't look
so hot).

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

 

[w_tom]

Get the phone company to correct his mistake (so they will
reeducate the man and so you are not in violation of FCC
regulations). Does your box look like these?
http://www.alarmsuperstore.com/bw/bw%20connectors.htm
http://www.bass-home.com/gotoproduct.cfm?item=91598

Then NID must be earthed. And not earthed to the cable
company wire. The NID must make a connection to the same
earth ground where the cable wire also makes its earthing
connection. Each earthing wire should run separate and then
meet at the single point earth ground.

Any future trouble with phone company installers, then here
is the code:

From the National Electrical Code Article 800.30A:
A listed primary protector shall be provided on each circuit
run partly or entirely in aerial wire or aerial cable not
confined within the block containing the building served so
as to be exposed to accidental contact with electric light or
power conductor operating at over 300 volts to ground. In
addition, where there exists a lightning exposure, each
interbuilding circuit on a premise shall be protected by a
listed primary protector at each end of the interbuilding
circuit.

Article 800.30B Location.

The primary protector shall be located in, on, or immediately
adjacent to the structure or building served and as close as
practical to the point of entrance.

Article 800.31

The primary protector shall consist of an arrester connected
between each line conductor and ground in an appropriate
mounting. Primary protector terminals shall be marked to
indicate line and ground as applicable.

In short, telco (and not you) must earth that NID less than
10 feet to a point on ground rod where all earth ground wires
meet. Furthermore, that earthing wire must not be bundled
(must be routed separately) with any other none earthing wire.

zxcvbob wrote:

The phone company came out last weekend and repaired my dead
phone service; the *old* wires from the pole were worn through
by the strain relief clamp just before they disappeared
through the hole in the siding and connected to the 1950's
terminal block. The reused the old wires, cutting them off
above the worn spot and he installed a fancy new terminal
box with a test plug. When he was connecting the old service
wires to the big terminals in the box (which I assume have
gas discharge tubes to protect against lightning), I noticed
that it had a big heavy ground terminal which he left
unconnected. There was a 10 gauge ground wire available
(from the cable TV service) that he could have easily
tapped, but he said that ground connection in the box was
only for buried cable and not for overhead services.

So what good is the lightning protection with no path to
ground? If the servie wires are underground and have a
metal sheath, that might be good enough grounding.
Otherwise, the ground terminal should be bonded to the
house grounding electrode system. Currently my phone
line float, unless they are grounded at the utility pole.

I think I need to open up that box and connect the ground,
although I will probably have to drill out the fancy screw
they used to close the box.

Bob

 

[w_tom]

Chris has misrepresented what was posted. Anything else
installed as part of the protection system is, at best,
supplementary. Until the 'whole house' protector and single
point earth ground is installed, then nothing else can be
effective. Supplementary devices are all but useless without
first earthing the incoming transient. Furthermore, those
supplementary devices that can work adjacent to a computer are
already inside that computer.

Take, for example, series mode protectors from Zerosurge,
Brickwall, and Surgex. Good piece of design. However notice
the soft underbelly. There is this little thing called a
safety ground that completely bypasses a series mode
protector. If the building is not 'shunt mode' protected
right at the single point earth ground as described
previously, then a series mode protector is easily bypassed -
ineffective. Series mode protector is only supplementary and
can be ineffective without the 'whole house' earthed
protection system.

There is no more superior protection than single point earth
ground and 'whole house' protector. Furthermore, the cost of
enhancing that single point earth ground is significantly less
expensive and more effective than plug-in protectors on every
appliance. Provided is the most cost effective and overall
effective solution to hardware transient protection.

The silly suggestion is that lightning hitting a nearby tree
will create some kind of monster electromagnetic field that
will destroy electronics. I am still waiting for anyone to
provide those numbers. Lightning striking a tree and causing
internal appliance damage is more often a direct strike to the
appliance. Often associated with not using the single point
earth ground.

An example demostrates how a nearby tree can actually
channel a surge into and out of household appliances. 6
campers were sleeping beneath a tree that was struck. 4 were
sleeping perpendicular to the tree and therefore remained
healthy. Two were sleeping pointed towards that tree. They
were seriously hurt because lightning left earth, traveled
down each body, then reentered earth. Those two suffered a
direct strike because they were a path from cloud to earth
borne charges located elsewhere.

Same concept applies to building protection. That lightning
that struck a tree could have found a conductive path through
appliances because house did not use a single point earth
ground. Notice the most important component in a surge
protection 'system'? Single point earth ground.

How do campers avoid a direct strike from the ground?
Again, single point earth ground which means both feet
together - the only point where a human body touched earth.

Is the 'whole house' solution as proposed perfect? Of
course not. Someone here may suffer a rare strike that even
overwhelms that 'whole house' protection. But then we are not
installing perfect protection. We are upgrading near zero
protection to protection that is well over 95% effective - at
very little cost. To have well over 95% effectiveness does
not require zero resistance grounding. Ufer grounding even
enhances that 95+% effective protection. Somehow Chris has
invented values (such as resistance for Ufer grounding - but
he does not even provide the number) that I did not provide
and that does not adversely effect that far more superior
solution. Near zero resistance in an Ufer ground is so
effective that the method is used to keep ammunition from
exploding due to a direct lightning strike.

Telco stations and cell towers, on the other hand, must
never suffer damage even from that most rare and powerful
strike. Therefore they install massive amounts more earthing
just to improve that less than 5%. The bottom line remains.
They too use the 'whole house' protectors with a massive
single point earth ground. They also don't use useless and
grossly overpriced plug-in protectors. The do use a UPS that
also contributes to protection because that UPS is also
properly earthed; not a plug-in type.

The point here being that one can spend tens of times more
money per protected appliance and get virtually no effective
protection from plug-in protectors.

Unfortunately Chris Lewis has mischaracterized my posts. He
still thinks a protector adjacent to the computer and
essentially unearthed will provide some type of protection.
That can only be true in a DC world. Due to wire impedance
and the RF nature of destructive surges, then adjacent plug-in
protectors have no earth grounding. IOW plug-in protectors are
ineffective. Apparently Chris doesn't understand about RF,
rapid transients and slew rates which is why he thinks a
plug-in protector is earthed.

In learning about lightning strikes by actually replacing
the damaged ICs, multiple computers were damaged because a
powered off computer was adjacent to a plug-in surge
protector. That's right. An adjacent surge protector even
contributed to damage of that powered off computer and spread
through the network to damage other computer network cards.
Damage created by a plug-in protector that was too close to
transistors and too far from earth ground.

Any protection that can work adjacent to the computer is
inside the computer. Any surge protector without a less than
10 foot connection to earth ground, well, its manufacturer
does not even claim to protect from that typically destructive
type of surge.

Provided was both the theory AND experimental evidence of
effective protection. Chris Lewis is invited to provide
theory and experimental evidence that explains how a plug-in
protector could possibly protect an adjacent computer. Chris
will have to provide the evidence because that surge protector
manufacturer will not even make that claim. That manufacturer
so fears we might learn about earthing that he does not even
mention earthing. That manufacturer knows this basic fact: a
surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Better to avoid the topic to not harm sales.

Supplementary protectors remain largely ineffective if the
essential 'whole house' and single point earth ground is not
installed.

Chris Lewis wrote:

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with a
whole house surge suppressor. It'll usually do most of the
job just fine on a _line_ strike. Which is probably the
most common.

On the other hand, a lightning strike hitting a tree a few
hundred feet away on the other side of the house from the
panel is not all that uncommon, and a whole-house suppressor
will be much less help. Surge suppression (even with
relatively remote/poor grounding) _local_ to the device
helps more.

tom_w's obsession is that _only_ whole house surge
suppressers work, _only_ whole house surge suppressors
_can_ work, (and dare I say it), work _perfectly_ all
the time, and all other devices are all-out fraud and
completely useless.

He doesn't understand that earth grounds (even UFERs
spec'd well beyond code req'ts) aren't (and often not
even close to) zero resistance.

He doesn't understand about RF (lightning strikes have
LOTs of RF in them), rapid transients and slew rates.
He's living in a DC world.

The real world just isn't quite like that.

 

[Charles Perry]

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40EE90C3.AC51CE52@hotmail.com...

All I can say is we have tested it in a lab and even a properly installed
single point ground , along with a whole-house surge protector can still
lead to damaged equipment. You can choose to believe it or not, but that it
is a fact.

Charles Perry P.E.

 

[w_tom]

Protection is required for every incoming wire to a building
including satellite dish and television antenna. But National
Electrical Code is not concerned with appliance safety. Their
mandate is for human safety. Therefore 'whole house'
protector on phone wires and grounded cable wire is required
by code. 'Whole house' protector for AC electric is not
required. We still build new homes as if the transistor did
not exist. No code exists to protect household appliances.
Therefore homeowner must complete the protection 'system'.

Homeowner must exceed code requirements; install additional
appliance protection on AC electric. Intermatic products
(including the one sold in Home Depot as Intermatic IG1240RC)
can put 'whole house' protection on AC electric. Others are
sold by Leviton, Cutler Hammer, Ditek, Polyphaser, Furse,
Erico and a very long list of other manufacturers. Square D
also sells an integrated 'whole house' protector that does
everything in one rack:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1B7539A1
which should not be confused with an older Square D product
that
is undersized (ineffective).

Earthing is required on every incoming wire. Some cable
companies are now (finally) earthing their cable before
entering the building (a ground connection to outside water
faucet is not acceptable protection). No surge protectors
required to earth the incoming CATV wire. Telco routinely
installs a 'whole house' protector (for free) in the NID of
each customer interface. Again, these are required by code
and therefore (should) exist. But the most common source of
destructive surges is wires highest on utility pole; wires
most often struck - AC electric. For appliance protection, an
AC electric 'whole house' protector is important.

Flea Ridden wrote:

Why don't all manufacturers sell models like the Intermatic
PanelGuard IG1300-2T-1C which protects phone and cable
inputs too?

If protection like this is not needed for phone and cable
lines, why is it needed for A/C lines?

 

[Tim Auton]

"Charles Perry" <pipesandtobacco@hotmail.com> wrote:

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40EE90C3.AC51CE52@hotmail.com...

All I can say is we have tested it in a lab and even a properly installed
single point ground , along with a whole-house surge protector can still
lead to damaged equipment. You can choose to believe it or not, but that it
is a fact.

You seem to know your stuff, which is more than can be said for w_tom
(not that I'm particularly qualified to judge either of you). I think
w_tom is a Perl script myself. His name looks like a function call.
The overly verbose style is just to pad out the generated "content" so
you get bored of reading it and don't notice its artificial nature.
The script obviously triggers on "surge protector" as "he" appears all
over usenet posting almost exclusively on this topic.


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.

 

[w_tom]

Not much I can say without many the technical details of
that test. How do we make 'whole house' protection work in
telephone exchanges? One preferred characteristic is the
'whole house' protector mounted directly on the single point
earth ground AND electronics separated by up to 50 meters of
wire. That's right. As much as 150 foot separation.
Important to an effective earth ground / 'whole house'
protector system is a short distance to earth ground AND good
separation between protector and transistors. That 50 meters
is additional impedance that help protect transistors.

Polyphaser makes a surge protector that has no earth ground
connection. Why? The distance to earth ground is so critical
that the protector is mounted directly ON earth ground.
Polyphaser is a well respected benchmark of the surge
protection industry:
http://www.polyphaser.com

What can I say. Technique is so well proven that telco
switching station, connected to overhead wires everywhere in
town, need not shutdown for thunderstorms. I go with the
people who have been doing this stuff for so many
generations. The protection is only as effective as its earth
ground.

Charles Perry wrote:

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40EE90C3.AC51CE52@hotmail.com...
All I can say is we have tested it in a lab and even a
properly installed single point ground , along with a
whole-house surge protector can still lead to damaged
equipment. You can choose to believe it or not, but that
it is a fact.

Charles Perry P.E.

 

[Tekkie]

w_tom posted for all of us....

We knock down that field generated voltage with an NE-2 neon
glow lamp because the current associated with a long wire
antenna (ie telephone line) is quite small. I ask this
question repeatedly and never receive appropriate numbers.
Where is the massive current from a long wire antenna that is
not and cannot be earthed by telco's 'whole house'
protector? If the long telephone wire creates a massive
surge, then what are the numbers that overwhelm a protector?

Yes, long wires do create a voltage potential. But then
appliances already have substantial internal protection. And
the 'whole house' protector / single point earth ground system
designed for direct strikes makes lesser field generated
transients irrelevant. If we solve the direct strike problem,
then where are numbers for electromagnetic field generated
transients? Transient that is more powerful than a direct
strike?

In an IEEE paper, a long wire was stretched across the
building and subject to nearby lightning strikes. Something
on the order of 2000 volts appears on that wire. However if a
minimal load is placed across those 2000 volts, then voltage
all but disappears. Power in that 2000 volt open circuit wire
was minimal.

In another example, lightning struck a lightning rod.
Ground wire for that lightning rod was about 4 feet away from
a computer inside the building. Computer was completely
unaffected even though the direct lightning strike traveled
down the adjacent grounding wire. If lightning had such
destructive fields, then the computer should have (at minimum)
crashed.

I can appreciate the theory of electromagnetically generated
transients. Now lets see numbers applied to that theory.
Experience repeatedly says the direct strike is so
destructive. If nearby strikes were so destructive, then car
radios would often be damaged due to nearby strikes. Radios
designed to concentrate electromagnetic fields onto sensitive,
low voltage RF transistors are still not damaged by
lightning's electromagnetic fields.

A classic case of this is proven at the School District where I work. Every
electrical storm would blow the phone system cards in the switch after a major
remodel to the tune of $2000 - $5000. All kinds of surge protection blah blah.
The "brains" came in scratched their heads. I have been reading your posts for
a long time on this. I said lets find and install a GOOD ground.

Problem solved. Has NOT happened since.

Tekkie

 

[Yep]

"Tekkie" <Tekkie@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b590ab0a8a931f098975b@news.Individual.net...

w_tom posted for all of us....

We knock down that field generated voltage with an NE-2 neon
glow lamp because the current associated with a long wire
antenna (ie telephone line) is quite small. I ask this
question repeatedly and never receive appropriate numbers.
Where is the massive current from a long wire antenna that is
not and cannot be earthed by telco's 'whole house'
protector? If the long telephone wire creates a massive
surge, then what are the numbers that overwhelm a protector?

Yes, long wires do create a voltage potential. But then
appliances already have substantial internal protection. And
the 'whole house' protector / single point earth ground system
designed for direct strikes makes lesser field generated
transients irrelevant. If we solve the direct strike problem,
then where are numbers for electromagnetic field generated
transients? Transient that is more powerful than a direct
strike?

In an IEEE paper, a long wire was stretched across the
building and subject to nearby lightning strikes. Something
on the order of 2000 volts appears on that wire. However if a
minimal load is placed across those 2000 volts, then voltage
all but disappears. Power in that 2000 volt open circuit wire
was minimal.

In another example, lightning struck a lightning rod.
Ground wire for that lightning rod was about 4 feet away from
a computer inside the building. Computer was completely
unaffected even though the direct lightning strike traveled
down the adjacent grounding wire. If lightning had such
destructive fields, then the computer should have (at minimum)
crashed.

I can appreciate the theory of electromagnetically generated
transients. Now lets see numbers applied to that theory.
Experience repeatedly says the direct strike is so
destructive. If nearby strikes were so destructive, then car
radios would often be damaged due to nearby strikes. Radios
designed to concentrate electromagnetic fields onto sensitive,
low voltage RF transistors are still not damaged by
lightning's electromagnetic fields.

A classic case of this is proven at the School District where I
work. Every
electrical storm would blow the phone system cards in the switch
after a major
remodel to the tune of $2000 - $5000. All kinds of surge protection
blah blah.
The "brains" came in scratched their heads. I have been reading
your posts for
a long time on this. I said lets find and install a GOOD ground.

Problem solved. Has NOT happened since.

Tekkie

Should we give all our addresses as to where to mail the checks? LOL

 

[zxcvbob]

w_tom wrote:

Get the phone company to correct his mistake (so they will
reeducate the man and so you are not in violation of FCC
regulations). Does your box look like these?
http://www.alarmsuperstore.com/bw/bw%20connectors.htm
http://www.bass-home.com/gotoproduct.cfm?item=91598

It looks a little bit like that. They called it a N.I.-something.

Then NID must be earthed. And not earthed to the cable
company wire. The NID must make a connection to the same
earth ground where the cable wire also makes its earthing
connection. Each earthing wire should run separate and then
meet at the single point earth ground.

Any future trouble with phone company installers, then here
is the code:
From the National Electrical Code Article 800.30A:

[snip]

Thanks, that what I thought. I'll call them Monday morning (I don't see
any need to call over the weekend.) Actually, I might call them
tomorrow and have them send someone out Monday.

Bob

 

[HorneTD]

Tekkie wrote:

w_tom posted for all of us....


We knock down that field generated voltage with an NE-2 neon
glow lamp because the current associated with a long wire
antenna (ie telephone line) is quite small. I ask this
question repeatedly and never receive appropriate numbers.
Where is the massive current from a long wire antenna that is
not and cannot be earthed by telco's 'whole house'
protector? If the long telephone wire creates a massive
surge, then what are the numbers that overwhelm a protector?

Yes, long wires do create a voltage potential. But then
appliances already have substantial internal protection. And
the 'whole house' protector / single point earth ground system
designed for direct strikes makes lesser field generated
transients irrelevant. If we solve the direct strike problem,
then where are numbers for electromagnetic field generated
transients? Transient that is more powerful than a direct
strike?

In an IEEE paper, a long wire was stretched across the
building and subject to nearby lightning strikes. Something
on the order of 2000 volts appears on that wire. However if a
minimal load is placed across those 2000 volts, then voltage
all but disappears. Power in that 2000 volt open circuit wire
was minimal.

In another example, lightning struck a lightning rod.
Ground wire for that lightning rod was about 4 feet away from
a computer inside the building. Computer was completely
unaffected even though the direct lightning strike traveled
down the adjacent grounding wire. If lightning had such
destructive fields, then the computer should have (at minimum)
crashed.

I can appreciate the theory of electromagnetically generated
transients. Now lets see numbers applied to that theory.
Experience repeatedly says the direct strike is so
destructive. If nearby strikes were so destructive, then car
radios would often be damaged due to nearby strikes. Radios
designed to concentrate electromagnetic fields onto sensitive,
low voltage RF transistors are still not damaged by
lightning's electromagnetic fields.


A classic case of this is proven at the School District where I work. Every
electrical storm would blow the phone system cards in the switch after a major
remodel to the tune of $2000 - $5000. All kinds of surge protection blah blah.
The "brains" came in scratched their heads. I have been reading your posts for
a long time on this. I said lets find and install a GOOD ground.

Problem solved. Has NOT happened since.

Tekkie

I had the same experience in a number of buildings that I have serviced
as an electrician. The damage ceases when I build a low impedance
Grounding Electrode System and connect all of the wire born utilities to
it.
--
Tom H

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <mv8ue0lablbcoegu04sk5vfhb8bd2v3883@4ax.com>, Tim Auton
<tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY]> writes

I think
w_tom is a Perl script myself. His name looks like a function call.
The overly verbose style is just to pad out the generated "content" so
you get bored of reading it and don't notice its artificial nature.
The script obviously triggers on "surge protector" as "he" appears all
over usenet posting almost exclusively on this topic.

I have asked w_tom on numerous occasions to state whether he is employed
by, or has a financial interest in, the makers of the "whole house
protective devices" that he strenuously advocates.

He has so far ignored those invitations, which leads me to conclude that
his advice is highly subjective and partial and should thus be regarded
with suspicion.

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?